governmen t

Storage ~A?

•ARTMENTS OF STATE, JUSTICE, AND COM- ~ <

MERCE, THE JUDICIARY, AND RELATED

AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS FOR 1963

74 =

, Ap fcj 

3" 89/9i>3

H E A R IN G S

BEFORE A

SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE 

COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS 

HOUSE OE REPRESENTATIVES

EIGHTY-SEVENTH CONGRESS

SECOND SESSION

SUBCOMMITTEE ON DEPARTMENTS OF STATE, JUST ICE, AND COMMERCE, 

THE JUDICIARY, AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS 

JOHN J. ROONEY, New York, Ch air ma n

ROBERT L. F. SIKES, Flo rida FRANK T. BOW, Ohio

DON MAGNUSON, W ashington GLENARD P. LIPSCOMB, California

FRED MARSHALL, Minnesota ELFORD A. CEDERBERG, Michigan

Jay B. Howe, Staff Assistant to the Subcommittee

THE JUDICIARY

Printed for the use of the Committee on Appropriations

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

AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS FOR 1963

H E A R IN G S

BEFORE A

SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE 

COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS 

HOUSE OE REPRESENT ATIVES

EIGHTY-SEVENTH CONGRESS

SE CO ND SE SS IO N

SUBCOMMITTEE ON DEPARTMENTS OF STATE, JUSTICE, AND COMMERCE,

THE JUDICIARY, AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS

JOHN J. ROONEY, New York, Ch air man

ROBERT L. F. SIKES, Florida FRANK T. BOW. Ohio

DON MAGNUSON, Washington GLENARD I’. LIPSCOMB, California

FRED MARSHALL, Minnesota ELFORD A. CEDERBERG, Michigan

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

THE JUDICIARY

Pr in te d fo r the use of the Comm itte e oh Ap prop ria tio ns

83466

U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 1962
COM M IT T E E ON A P P R O P R IA T IO N S

CLA R E N C E

G E O R G E H. MAH ON , Texas 

H A R R Y R. 8H EP PA RD , California 

A L B E R T TH OM AS , Texas 

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

CANNON, Missouri, Chairman

JOHN TA B E R , New York 

BEN F. JE NSE N, Iowa 

H. C A R L AN D ER SEN , Minnesota

JA M IE L. W R IT TEN , Mississippi 

G EO R G E W. AN DREW S, Alabam a 

JO HN J. RO ONEY, New York 

J. VAU GH AN G AR Y, Virginia 

JO HN E. FO G A R T Y, Rhode Island 

R O B E R T L. F. SI KE S, Florida 

OTT O E. PA SS MAN , Louisiana 

S ID N E Y R. YA T E S, Illinois 

F R E D M AR SH AL L, Minnesota 

JO E L. EV IN S, Tennessee 

JOHN F. SH ELLEY, California 

EDW AR D P. BOLA ND, Massachusetts 

DO N MAG NUS ON, Washington 

W IL LI AM II. N A TCH ER , Kentu cky 

D A N IE L J. FL OO D, Pennsylvania 

W IN FIE LD K. DEN TO N , Indiana 

TO M ST EED , Oklahoma 

HU GH Q. A LE X A N D E R , North Carolina 

A L F R E D E. SA N TA NGELO , Ne w York 

JO SE PH M. M ON TO YA, New M exico 

G EO R G E E. SH IP LE Y, Illinois 

JO HN M. SLA CK , Jr., West Virginia 

D A L E A LFOR D, Arkansas 

JO HN LE SI NSK I, Michigan 

JO HN J. F L Y N T , Georgia

W ALT HOR AN , Washington 

IV OR D. FEN TO N, Pennsylvania 

G ER A LD R. FO RD , Jr., Michigan 

HAR OLD C. O STER TAG , New York 

FR A N K T. BOW, Ohio 

CH A RLE S R A PER JO NA S, North Carolina 

M ELV IN R. LA IR D, Wisconsin 

ELF O RD A. C E D E R B E R G , Michigan 

G LEN A R D P. LIP SC O M B, California 

JOHN J. RH OD ES , Arizona 

JOHN R. PI LL IO N , New York 

PH IL W EAVER, Nebraska 

W IL LI AM E. M IN SH ALL , Ohio 

R O B E R T II. M IC H EL, Illinois 

SI LV IO O. CO N TE, Massachusetts 

W IL LI AM H. M IL LIK E N , Jr., Pennsylvania 

EA R L WILSO N, Indiana

K e n n e t h Spr a n k le, Cle rk an d S ta ff D irector
DEPARTME NTS OF STA TE. JUS TIC E, COMMERCE, THE

JUDICIAR Y. AND RELATED AGENCIES AP PR OP RI ATION S FOR 1963

THE JU DIC IA RY

Monday, J anuar y 15, 1962.

Mr. R ooney. The comm ittee will please now come to order.

Th is mo rning we com mence conside ration of th e 1963 fiscal year 

ap prop ria tio ns req ues ts for the De pa rtm en ts of St ate, Justice, Commerce, the Judic iary, and rel ate d agencies.

As all o f the c om mittee memb ers know, the scope of this sub com ­

m itt ee has been enlarged to incl ude the De pa rtm en t of Com merce 

and a numb er of r ela ted agencies.

Th ere is pre sen tly before the comm itte e a sta teme nt of the ap prop riati ons for 1962 and the bu dg et estimate s for 1963. At the presen t 

tim e these figures are confide ntia l and are to be kept confiden tial 

within the sub com mittee un til Preside nt Ke nnedy delivers his annual 

budget message.

T otal 1963 J udiciary Request

Mr. R ooney. The first item with which we will concern ourse lves 

is the Fed eral jud icia ry. Th e total req uest for the judic iar y for the 

fiscal ye ar 1963 is in the am ount of $61,235,000. This reques ted 

am ou nt is an increase of $3,439,350 ove r the am ou nt o f t he a pprop ria ­

tions to da te in the curre nt fiscal year, to wit, fiscal ye ar 1962. 

Summary of Appropriat ion s, 1962, and Estima tes , 1963

We sha ll insert at this po int in the record pages I, II , and ID of 

the justifications.

(T he pages follow:)

Comparative sum mary of appr opriations and appropr iation estimates

Court or service 1962

appropriate d

1963

estimate

Increase (+ ) 

or decrease 

( -) , 1963 

compared 

with 1962

Ann ual appropria tion s (general account):

Supreme Co urt______ ______________ » $1,982,900 

359,000 

895,000 

964,500

47,014,250

$2,067,000

361,000

919,000

1,054,000

’ 48, 794,000

+$84,100 

+2,000 

+24,000 

+89,500

+1,779,750

Co urt of Customs an d Paten t App ea ls...............

Customs C ourt ._____ ___ _____ ______ _____

Co urt of C laims____________ _______ _ . .

Co urt s of appeals, district courts, and other judicial 

services_______________ ___________ .

To tal annual aDDroDriations feerieral account) 

App ropriations (special account)___ ____________ ____ 51,215,650

6,580,000

53,195,000

8,040.000

+1,979,350

+1,460,000

Grand to ta l___ ____ . _____ _____ ____ _ 57,795,650 61,235,000 +3.439,350

1

 Includes $38,000 for activ ities previously carried under “ Books for the Supreme Court, Lib rary of 

Congress.”

* Excludes $370,000 for activities transferred in the estim ates to the General Services Administration under 

“ Operating expenses, Public Buildings Service.”

(D
2

Su mmary of positions

1961 ac tual 1962 estimate 1963 estimate

To tal numb er of perma nent positions___ _ _______ ______ 4,382 4,718 4,961

Full-time equivalen t of other positions___. _________ _____ 844 914 976

Average numb er of all employees_____ _________ _________ 5,059 5,435 5,806

Nu mb er of employees at en d of year__ _____ _____________ 5,277 5,624 5,952

Comparative sum ma ry of obligations by object

[In thousands of dollars]

Personal services and benefits:

11 Personnel compensation:

Perman ent positions___ __________

Positions other t han perm anent........

Other personnel compensation.........

Total personnel compensation____

12 Personnel benefits___________________

13 Benefits for former personnel__________

Total personal services and be ne fit s.. ..

Contra ctual services and supplies:

21 Trav el and tran sportation of persons.......

22 Tran sportation of things............ ...............

23 Ren t, communications, and u tilities........

24 Printin g and reproduction................... .

25 Other services........... . .................. . ...........

26 Supplies and m aterials_____ __________

Total contractual services and supplies. 

Acquisition of capital assets:

31 Equipment................................................-

Total obligations.....................................

1961 actual 1962 estim ate 1963 estimate

$34,290 $37.417 $40,302

8,663 9,190 9,678

224 130 130

43,178 46, 737 50.109

2, 575 2,815 3,038

25 25 25

45, 778 49,577 53,172

2,898 3,081 3,529

52 51 54

1,022 1,172 1,425

445 490 540

337 357 411

425 412 438

5,179 5,563 6.397

1,338 2,659 ' 1.664

52,297 57,796 61.235

(

1

 Includes $35,000 for ac tivity previously carried und er “ Books for the Supreme Court, Library of Congress.” Excludes $370,000 transferred in the estim ates to the Oeneral Services Administration und er 

“ Operating expenses, Public B uildings Service.”

COURT OF CUSTOMS AND PATENT APPEALS

W IT NES SE S

HON. EU GE NE W ORL EY , CHIE F JU DGE

HON. I. JA CK M ARTIN , ASS OC IA TE JU DG E

JO SE PH G. GA UG ES , M ARSH AL

Mr. Rooney. The first court to which we shall direct our attention 

is the Court of Customs and Patent Appeals. The justifications 

with regard thereto begin at page 47 thereof.

We are indeed pleased to have with us the chief judge and our 

distinguished former colleague, the Honorable Eugene Worley of 

Texas; the associate judge, the Honorable I. Jack Martin; and the 

longtime marshal of the court, Mr. Joseph G. Gauges. Do you have 

a general statement, Judge Worley?

Judge Worley. I do not, Mr. Chairman. We shall express our 

appreciation of the honor of being the first to appear in your new 

committee room by being brief. The detailed justifications are in 

the sheets to which you referred.

Mr. Rooney. We have not as yet referred to the sheets with regard 

to your court. The sheets to which we have referred cover the 

entire Federal judiciary.

I

*
11

12

21

a

24

25

26 

31

Sa la rie s an d E x pe n se s

Object classification

(In thou sa nd s of do llars]

1961

ac tu al

1962

estim ate

1963

es tim ate

Personnel comp ensat ion : Pe rm an en t position s _ _____ ___ - ____________ 296 304 306

Pos itio ns othe r th an pe rm an en t ____ - 10 10

1

To tal per son nel c om pensation . . ___________ - - •296 314 316

Personnel ben efits ____ ____________________ 17 17 17

Travel an d tra ns po rtat io n of perso ns . . ______ _____ 1 1 1

Re nt, co mm unicati ons, an d utiliti es ____ . _________ 2 3 3

Pr intin g an d re pr od uc tion _________ _________________ 9 17 17

Other services _ _ __ ________________________ 1 1 1

Sup plies an d materials _ _______ _______________ 1 2 2

Equ ip m en t---------- --------- ------------------------------------------- 2 4 4

To tal obligations ______ r

____ ______ ___ 330 359 361

Personnel sum mar y

1961

ac tual

1962

est im ate

1963

es tim ate

To tal num be r of p er m an en t posit ions . _ ____ ____________ - 27 28 28

Fu ll-tim e eq ui va lent of o th er posit ion s_____________________ 1 1

Average n um be r of all em plo yees _____ _______ ____ 27 28 28

Num be r of employees a t en d of y e a r ....----------------------------- 26 28 28

Program and financing

(In thou sa nd s of dollars)

1961

ac tual

1962

est im ate

1963

es tim ate

Pro gram by activ ities: Salaries an d expense s (to ta l oblig ation s) ______________________________________ 330 359 361

Fin ancin g: Un oblig ate d balanc e lapsing--------------------- -------- 27

New oblig ati onal auth ori ty (app ro pr iatio n) ...... ................ 357 359 361

Mr. Roo ney. It would be well if we ins ert ed pages 47 thr ough 52 

of the justifica tio ns at this poin t in the record.

(The page s follow:)

Statement relating appropriation estimate to current appropriation

1962 a pp ropriatio n in a nn ua l act .......................................................................................................................... $359,000

359 ,00 0 Base for 1963---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Ne t difference, 1963 over 1962:

Req uiremen ts

1962 appr opr ia te d

1963

es tim ate

Difference, 

inc rea se 

(+ ) or de ­

crease ( —)

Salaries an d ex penses----------------- ------------------------ $359,000 .*361.000 +$2,000

To tal e stim ate for 1963 361 ,00 0
St ate me nt s h o wi n g a n alysis by o bject

O bject 1 96 2 esti m ate 1 96 3 esti m ate

I ncrea se ( + ) 

or

decr ease ( —)

11 Pe rs o n n el c o m pe ns ati o n..................... $ 3 1 4, 0 0 0

1 7, 0 0 0

1, 0 0 0

3, 0 0 0

1 7, 0 0 0

1, 0 0 0

2, 0 0 0

4, 0 0 0

$ 3 1 6, 00 0

1 7, 0 0 0

1, 0 0 0

3, 0 0 0

1 7, 0 0 0

1, 0 0 0

2, 0 0 0

4, 0 0 0

+ $ 2, 0 0 0

1 2 Pe rs o n n el b e n ef it s.. _ _ _ _

2 1 Tr a v el a n d tra ns p o rt ati o n of pe rs o ns _ _ _ _ ..

2 3 R e nt, c o m m u nic ati o ns, a n d utilities

2 4 P ri nti n g a n d re pr o d uc ti o n. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

2 5 Ot h er se r v ic es..

2 6 S u p plie s a n d m at erials _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

3 1 E q ui p m e n t.........................................

T o tal o bli g ati o ns............ ............................. 3 5 9, 0 0 0 3 6 1, 0 0 0 + 2, 0 0 0

S u m m ary of i ncre ase d re q uire me nts f or 1 9 6 8

Nat ur e of e x pe n se ( or sa vi n gs): A m o u nt

1. Pr o visi o n f or v vit hi n- gra de salar y a d v a nc e m e nts _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ $ 2, 0 0 0

I ncre ase, 1 9 63 o ver 1 9 6 2 _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 2, 0 0 0

J U S T I FI C A T I O N

L a n g u a ge c h a n ges

N o n e.

O bjectives

T his a p p r o priati o n is f or t he salari es of t he c hief j u d ge, f o ur ass ociate j u d ges, 

a n d ot h er officers a n d e m pl o yees of t h e C o urt of C ust o m s a n d Pate nt A p peals as 

well as f or c o m m u nicati o ns, s u p plies, a n d ot h er i nci de nt al e x pe nses of t he c o urt. 

F or data as t o t he f u ncti o ns of t he c o u rt, its j uris dicti o n, a n d basic stat ut or y 

a ut h oritie s, refere nce is ma de t o secti o n F of t he “ Di gest of A p pr o priati o ns, t he 

J u dici ar y,’’ o n file wit h t he B urea u of t he B u d g et a n d t he A p pr o priati o ns C o mmitte es of t h e C o n gress.

Ge ner al j ustific ati o n

T he f oll o wi n g ta ble s h o ws t he casel o a d of t he C o urt of C ust o ms a n d Pat e nt 

A p peals d uri n g t he past 5 years:

C u st o ms cases:

Pe n di n g, be gi n ni n g of y ea r.................................................

D o c kete d d uri n g ye ar........................................................

Dis p ose d of d uri n g ye ar _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

Pe n di n g, e n d of y ea r _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

A v era g e ti m e (i n m o nt h s) bet wee n fili n g a n d h ea ri n g.

T otal a ve ra g e ti m e (i n m o nt h s) bet w ee n fili n g a n d 

de cisi o n........................ .............................. .............................

P ate nt a n d tr a d e m ar k cases:

Pe n di n g, be gi n ni n g of ye ar................. .....................................

D o c kete d d u ri n g ye ar.......... L.....................................

Dis p os e d of d uri n g ye ar _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

Pe n di n g, e n d of y ea r....................................................................

A ve ra ge ti m e (i n m o nt hs ) bet wee n fili n g a n d he ari n g _ _ _ _

T otal a v era ge ti m e (i n m o nt h s) bet w ee n fili n g a n d 

de cisi o n _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

1 95 7 1 95 8 1 95 9 1 96 0 1 96 1

2 3

4 0

4 3

2 0

2 0

4 2

3 2

3 0

3 0

4 0

3 5

3 5

3 5

4 5

4 1

3 9

3 9

3 2

41

3 0

7. 0

2. 0

6. 6

1. 4

8. 5

1. 3

8. 9

1. 9

8. 2

1. 9

9. 0

8 4

8 2

7 4

9 2

8. 0

9 2

8 3

8 3

9 2

9. 8

9 2

1 07

7 0

1 29

1 0. 8

1 29

1 27

1 22

1 34

1 0.1

1 34

1 26

1 1

1 4

1 6. 2

1. 8

1 4. 4

1. 6

1 3. 0

1. 4

1 2. 6

1. 9

1 1. 8

2. 3

1 8. 0 1 6. 0 1 4. 4 1 4. 5 1 4. 1

Det aile d j ustific ati o n

A n a p p r o priati o n of $ 3 6 1, 0 00 is re q u este d f or 1 9 63, a net i ncrease of $ 2, 0 00 

o ver t he a m o u nt a vaila ble f or 1 9 62. T he net i ncrease i n re q uire me nts f or 1 96 3 

is e x plai ne d bel o w:

Pr ovisi o n f or wit hi n- gr a de s al ary a dv a nce me nts

It is esti m ate d t h at $ 2, 0 0 0 will be re q uire d i n fiscal year 1 9 63 t o c o ver t he 

c ost of wit hi n- gr a de salar y a d v a nc e me nts t o be gra nte d c o urt e m pl o yees i n
amoun ts corresponding with those provided for by title VII of the Classification 

Act of 1949, as amended. Due to very little turnov er in the personnel of the court, no savings can be anticipated to offset the cost of within-grade sala ry 

advancements.

Mr. R ooney. These pages indicate tha t the request is in the amount of $361,000, which is a requested increase of $2,000 over the amount appropriated for this court to date in the current fiscal year. This requested increase is entirely for within-grade salary adju stments. Is that so, Judge Worley?

Judge Worley. Yes.

Mr. Rooney. Any questions, gentlemen?

N U M B E R OF CASE S

|£M r. Bow. Judge Worley, I notice the number of cases docketed in 

1961 has dropped slightly?

Judge Worley. Customs cases? Yes; they dropped from 45 to 32. Mr. Bow. And you have had no increase in the disposition of cases 

during tha t year?

Judge Worley. In 1961?

Mr. Bow. Yes.

Judge Worley. That sheet reflects the actual disposition of customs cases and patent and trademark cases. In patent and trademark cases our disposition has gone from 74 in 1957, 83 in 1958, 70 in 1959, 

122 in 1960, and 112 in 1961. Mr. Bow. Tha t is in the patent and tradem ark cases?

Judge Worley. Yes. Mr. Bow. We are referring first to the customs cases, Your cus­ toms cases disposed of were 43 in 1957, 32 in 1958, 35 in 1959, 41 in 

1960, and 41 in 1961.

Judge Worley. That is correct. Mr. Bow. This budget anticipates no additional personnel?

Judge Worley. It does not.

Mr. Bow. That is all, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Rooney. We thank you, Judge Worley, Judge Martin, and 

Mr. Gauges.

Judge Worley. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman and members of the committee.

Mr. Rooney. I forgot to point out tha t this item is on page 364 of 

the committee print.

Monday, J anuary 15, 1962.

COURT OF CLAIMS

W IT NES SE S

HON. MAR VI N JO NES, CHIE F JU DGE

HON. WIL SO N CO WEN , CHIE F COM M IS SI ONER

FRA NK T. PE ARTR EE , CL ER K

Mr. Rooney. The next requested appropriation, gentlemen, is that 

for the Court of Claims. There are two items, the first of which is to be found a t page 369 of the committee print entitled “ Salaries and expenses.” The other is 

entitled “ Repairs and improvements.”
6

We are hono red to have with us once again the distinguished chief 

jud ge of thi s court, the Ho norab le Ma rvin Jones of Te xas; the chief 

com mission er, the Ho norab le Wilson Cow en; and Mr. Fr an k T. 

Pe artre e, the clerk of the co urt.

Th e jus tifi cat ion s with regard to this c ou rt begin at page 61 thereof.

Sa la r ie s an d E x pe n se s

Object classification

(In thousands of dollars]

11 Personnel compensation:

Perm ane nt positions__________

Positions other th an perma nent.. 

Other personnel com pen sation ...

To tal personnel compensation.

12 Personnel benefits_______________

21 Trave l a nd transportation of persons.

23 Re nt, communications, and u tilitie s.

24 Printin g and reproduction________

25 Other se rvices___________________

26 Supplies and m aterials.......................

31 Eq uipm en t_____________________

To tal obligation s.............................

1961

actual

1962

estim ate

1963

estimate

746 789 862

6 6 6

2

766 795 868

50 52 58

12 20 23

9 10 11

68 65 68

1 1 1

6 6 6

4 6 10

904 955 1,044

Personnel summary

1961

actual

1962

estimate

1963

estimate

Total number of perm anent positions....... ............. ............. ... 74 78 86 Full-tim e eq uivalen t of other" positions_________________ 2 2 2

Average num ber of all employees________ ____ . .. 76 77 88 N umber of employees a t end of year. . . _______ _____ _____ 77 82 90

Program and financing

(In thousa nds of dollars]

1961

actual

1962

estim ate

1963

estimate

Program by activitie s: Salaries and expenses (total obligations). 

Financing: Unobligated balance lapsing_____ ____________

904

11

955 1,044

New obligational au tho rity (appropriation) __________ 915 955 1,044 t

We s hal l now concern ourselves with the first item en titled “Salaries 

and exp ens es.” The details with regard there to are to be found at 

pages 62 thr ough 71 of the justifica tio ns, which pages we shall insert 

at thi s point in the record.

(Th e pages follow:)
Statement relating app ropriation estimate to current app ropriation

.9 62 a p p ro p r ia tio n in a n n u a l a c t.......................................................... ......................................................................... $955 ,00 0

B ase fo r 1963................................................................................................................................................................................... 95 5,00 0

N e t d if fe re n c e , 1963 o v e r 1962:

1962 a p p r o ­

p r ia te d

1963

e s ti m a te

D if fe re n ce , 

in cre a se 

( + ) o r d e ­

cre ase ( —)

$9 55 ,000 $1 ,0 44,5 00 + $ 8 9 , 500

T o ta l e s ti m a te fo r 1963________________________________________________________________ ______ 1,04 4,50 0

Statement showing ana lysis by object

O b je c t 1962 e s ti m a te 1963 e s ti m a te

In cre a se ( + )

or

d ecre ase ( —)

11

12 

21

23

24

25

26 

31

P e rso n n e l c o m p e n s a ti o n ............ ............................................................

P e rso n n e l b e n e fits ...................................... ......................................... ..

T r a v e l a n d tra n s p o rta tio n of p e rs o n s-------- --------------------------

R e n t, c o m m u n ic a ti o n s , a n d u tilitie s ___________ _____ ______

P r in tin g a n d r e p r o d u c ti o n .....................................................................

O th e r se rv ic e s............ ..................... ............................................. ...............

S u p p li e s a n d m a te ria ls ......... .............................. . ..................................

E q u ip m e n t_________ _________ __________________ ________ _

T o ta l o b lig a tio n s.....................................................................................

$7 95 ,000 

52 ,200 

20 .0 00 

10 ,000 

65. (MIO 

1,0 00 

6,00 0 

5,80 0

$8 68 ,000 

57 ,700 

23,3 00 

10 ,800 

67 ,5 00 

1,00 0 

6,4 00 

9,8 00

+ $73,0 00

+ 5 ,5 0 0

+ 3 ,3 0 0

+ 8 0 0

+ 2 ,5 0 0

+ 4 0 0

+ 4 ,0 0 0

95 5,00 0 1,0 44 ,5 00 + 8 9 ,5 0 0

Summ ary of increased requirements for 196S

Nature of expense (or savings) 1. Deduction for nonrecurring cost of furniture and equ ipm ent for Amo unt

new personnel authorized for 1962________________________ —$800

2. Provision for within-grade salary advancements:

Compensation_______________________________ $7, 500

Benefits____________________________________ 500

--------- 8, 000

3. Law clerks for tria l commissioners, 8 new positions, grade GS-9

at $6,435 per a nnum:

Compensation______________________________ $51, 500

Benefits___________________________________ 4, 000

Miscellaneous expenses:

Com munications__________________ $800

Supplies and ma terials_____________ 400

------ 1, 200

Fur niture and equ ipm ent (nonrec urrin g)_______ 4, 800

---------- 61, 500

4. Additional funds required to main tain full employm ent (reduction of lapse ):

Com pensatio n______________________________ $14, 000

Benefits___________________________________ 1, 000

---------- 15,000

5. To cover increased subs isten ce (per diem) allowance from $12 to

$16 for court officials in a travel s ta tu s____________________ 3, 300

6. To cover th e nonrecurring expense of revising rules of c ou rt____ 2, 500

Total (net) increase, 1963 over 1962______________________ 89, 500
8

JUST IFIC ATION

Language changes

None.

Objectives

This appropriation is for the salaries of the chief judge, four associate judges, 

and oth er officers and employees of the Court of Claims as well as for travel, 

communications, printing, and oth er incidental expenses. For da ta as to the 

func tions of the court, its jurisdiction and basic sta tutory auth orities, reference 

is made to section H of the “D igest of Appropriations, the Jud iciary ,” on file 

with the Bureau of the Budget and the Appropriations Com mittees of the Congress. 

Detailed justification

An appropriation of $1,044,500 is requested for 1963, a net increase of $89,500 

over the amount available for 1962. The net increase in requirements is explained 

below:

Deduction for nonrecurring expenses authorized for 1962

The sum of $800 in 1962 for the purchase of furn iture and equipment for new 

personnel has been deducted in e stablishing the budgetary requirem ents for 1963. 

Provision fo r within-grade salary advancements

It is estim ated th at $8,000 will be required in fiscal year 1963 to gra nt officers 

and employees of the court (except judges, commissioners, the clerk of the court, 

and several employees serving in ungraded positions) within-grade salary advancem ents corresponding with those provided by title VII of the Classification 

Act of 1949, as amended. Of th e total requested, $7,500 represents increases in 

compensation and $500 is the rela ted Government contributions to the retirement fund and for group life insurance. The estimate is net of anticipate d 

savings due to turnover in personnel.

Law clerks for trial commissioners

The Judicial Conference at its September 1961 meeting approved a resolution 

providing for the appointm ent of eight law clerks to assist the trial commissioners 

of the court. In recent years, the work of the court has increased to the extent 

th at it is becoming increasingly difficult for the commissioners, who serve as 

tria l judges of the court, to keep their dockets current. This situation has 

resulted not only from the increase in the number of cases bu t because of the 

voluminous records in many of the suits and the long periods of time required 

for digesting the evidence in such cases. For this important task , the assistance 

of law clerks is urgently needed for the assistance of the commissioners. In 

addition, each commissioner is freque ntly absent from his office in the tria l of 

cases away from Washington, D.C. During such absent periods, which are as 

much as 6 weeks in length, little, if any, progress is made in cases which are 

awaiting completion of the commissioner’s report.

Under recen t changes in the rules of the court, the commissioners, in many 

insta nces bv direction of th e court, submit opinions an d recommendations for conclusions of law with theii findings of fact. This procedure, which is proving 

advanta geous in the better framing of issues as well as in expediting th e final disposition of cases, is viewed by the court as one of the most promising means of 

achieving and maintaining the docket in a current condition. Also, by a newly 

promulgated court rule, the commissioners are now ruling on all procedural 

motions, including various motions for production of documents involving difficult legal questions. In order th at these new procedures may be utilized effectively, it is necessary for the commissioners to have aid in the task of legal research 

th at is required in connection with the opinions submitted by them and with the 

many motions acted on by them.

Additional funds required in order to m aintain full employment based on total authorized positions

For fiscal year 1960, th e co urt’s appropriation request was reduced in the amount 

of $15,000. The court has been able to absorb tha t reduction because it has not 

been at its full authorized streng th. This saving is no longer possible because 

the cou rt now has a full complement of employees, and this amoun t is now needed 

in orde r to assure a full complement for fiscal year 1963.
9

To cover increased subsistence (per diem") allowance from $18 to $16 for court officials

in a travel status

Pursuant to the provisions of section 6 of Public Law 87-139, approved August 

14, 1961, and at the direc tion of the Judicial Conference of the United States, judges and other officers and employees of the Federal courts, including the 

Court of Claims, were authorized to claim, while in an official travel sta tus , on and after September 25, 1961, a $16 per diem allowance and parking fees. Prior to September 25, 1961, the per diem allowance had been fixed at $12 and 

parking fees were not allowable. The subsistence allowance for judges, on an 

actual expense basis, up to a maximum of $25 per day was not changed. It is estimated th at an additional $3,300 will be required to cover the increase 

in the per diem allowance and parking fees.

Nonrecurring expense of revising the rules of court

Because of the extensive amendments and additions which have been made to the court rules since their last publication in 1957, as well as still further additions a nd amendments which are currently being proposed, the court is planning to have published in late 1962 a complete revision of its rule book. This amoun t 

is requested as a nonrecu rring item to cover the cost of du plica tion and printing.

Mr. Rooney. These pages indicate that the request is in the 

amount of $1,044,500, which would be an increase of $89,500 over 

the amount appropriated for this purpose during the current fiscal 

year. At pages 64 and 65 there will be found a list of the increases 

requested, the major increase being for law clerks for trial commissioners.

Judge Jones, have all the commissioners been appointed?

Judge J ones. All the commissioners have been appointed tha t 

have been authorized. We have a request for consideration bv the 

Judicial Conference to authorize some additional commissioners to 

be appointed as needed, not to exceed five. But the total we are 

authorized to have have been appointed.

General Statement

Mr. Rooney. Do you wish to submit a general statement at this 

time?

Judge J ones. I would like to file a general statem ent, if I might.

Mr. Rooney. Very well. We shall insert your statement at this 

point in the record.

(The statement follows:)

During the court year, from October 3, 1960, to September 30, 1961, the cou rt 

disposed of 2,519 cases. Exc ept for 49 of these cases, in which no given amoun ts were claimed, the total am ount claimed was $103,551,433.54. Of the cases dis­ posed of, the c ourt rendered judgments for plaintiffs in the sum of $10,338,579.27, of which $2,139,067.04 carried interest. A number of these judgments were 

based on settleme nts between the parties. Also, the cou rt rendered judg men ts for the United States on counterclaims in the amount of $482,908.33, of which $28,431.28 carried inte rest. The clerk has reported to the Congress the business of the court for the above period, showing the names of th e plaintiffs, the am ounts 

involved, the nature of the cases, and the disposition thereof.

Of the tota l number of cases pending on October 1, 1961, 5,116, there were 

2,836 class cases pending, in which test cases have been or will be tried. The 

balance of the class cases will be disposed of administratively if the test cases a re decided in favor of the plaintiffs and will be dismissed if decided in favor of defendant. In practically all of the other 2,280 cases, testimony is to be taken by 

the trial commissioners of th is court
The following is a table se tting forth the number and type of cases commenced 

and t erm inated during the court year ended September 30, 1961:

Pe nd ing

Oct. 1,

1960

Filed

Dispo sed

of

Pe nd ing 

Se pt. 30, 

1961

Re gu lar ras es to b e t rie d _ _________________ 2,399 ,581 714 2,266

Ove rtime pa v an d service c lass cas es___ _____ 4,523

8

111 1,798 2,836

Ap peals from th e In di an Claim s C om m ission .. 13 7 14

T o ta ls ....................................... ...................... 6,930 705 2,519 5,116

Reg ular cases to be t ried :

Service pa y ______________ _______ 446 49 157 338

C ongr es si onal __ _________________ _____ 66 6 10 62

Con tra ct _ _________________________ 404 120 119 405

In dia n _____ _________________ 11 2 3 10

Misc ellane ou s....... ................- . .............. -- - 419 94 118 325

Pate nt _______ ________________ _____ 70 13 12 71

Pr op er ty re quis itio ned .____ . ..................... 309 35 26 318

Tax _______ _____ _________________ 465 203 135 533

Tra ns po rtat io n of prop erty (via railr oa d 

or truc k) ___________________________ 194 59 58 195

Ja pa ne se re loc ation p rogram _____________ 15 0 6 9

Ov ertim e pa y rase s (class cases):

Alask a Ra ilroad ____ ________________ 179 0 0 179

Firef igh ters . ________ ____ ____ ______ 2,032 0 1,687 345

Othe r o ve rti me c a s e s __ _________________ 328 111 53 386

Ser vi ce c la ss c as es _ _________________ 1,984 0 58 1,926

Appeals from In di an Cl aim s Co mm ission . 8 13 7 14

TAX AN D P R O P E R T Y R E Q U IS IT IO N E D CA SE S

As of the close of business September 30, 1961, there were 533 pending 

tax cases on the Court of Claims dockets, with a total amoun t claimed of 

$196,902,656.84. Six percent interest, as permitted by sta tut e, on this amount 

is $11,814,159.41 per annum.

As of the close of business on September 30, 1961, there were 318 pending 

property requisitioned cases on the Court of Claims dockets, the total amount 

claimed in these cases being $37,887,866.02.' Four percent inte rest as part of 

jus t compensation on this total sum amounts to $1,519,514.64 per annum. 

Petitions to the Sup rem e Court for writs of certiorari

Petitions for certio rari pending Oct. 3, 1960--------------------------------------- 15

Petitions for certiorari filed Oct. 3, 1960, to Sept. 30, 1961-------------------- 30

Tot al____________________________________________________ 45

Record for court year Oct. 3, 1960 to Sept. 30, 1961:

Petitions for certiorari denie d__________________________________

Petitions for certiorari granted and decision affirmed----------------------

Petitions for certiorari granted, decision reversed, and case rem and ed_

Petitions for certiorari granted bu t not acted upon________________

Petitions for certiorari filed bu t not acte d upon___________________

Records delivered to attorney s of record but not filed_________________ 22

Judge J ones. One reason we will need these additional appropriations is that we have had a vacancy on our court since last spring—in 

fact, it was during the summer, really, that Judge Madden left the 

court. We have had Judge Darr of Tennessee and Justice Reed, 

formerly of the Supreme Court, who has met with us every session 

this fiscal year. I do not know whether we will have him in the 

next one tha t will meet in February or not, but we hope to get an 

additional judge.

i Of wh ich $21,864,574.36 is the to ta l am ou nt claitned in 310 cases pe rta ining to re qu isiti on of.lan ds; of 

wh ich $16,123,291.66 is the to ta l a m ou nt clai me d in 8 cases p ertaining to perso nal p ro pe rty requ isi tio ne d.
11

One reason we were able to get by before on the amo unt th at has been made ava ilab le is the fact we have had some vacancies and we did not have the two commissioners. Of course that tak es the majo r 

portion of it, the two commissioners and the ir secreta ries.

LA W CLEK KS

And then the new law clerks, if we get the m. The Jud icia l Co n­ ference has end orsed the furnishing of law clerks; as a m atter of fac t, the C ourt of Claims section of the D ist ric t of Co lum bia Bar A ssoc iatio n has also endorsed them . The comm issioners go, as you know, all over the country. Th ey go for the convenience of the litiga nts to every State of the Union and som etim es in cases it is convenient to go to one or two ad ditio na l places because we hav e no juries, an d when they are awa y the law clerks could be ge tti ng the da ta toge ther to help the commissioners. Freq ue ntly a commissioner, when he finishes a hearing, is compelled to go out and sta y for 2 or 3 weeks a nd in some instances 2 or 3 mo nths, and the work just sta nd s there until he gets back. I believe th at it would be wise and a m at ter of econ omy to have the addition al law clerks, one for each two tria l 

comm issioners.

Mr. R ooney. Now many tria l commissioners do you have, 16?

Judge J one s. Fiftee n. Fifteen is all we are autho rized at th e 

present tim e; 15 trial commissioners. We hav e neve r had an y increase in our nu mber of judges and I hope we are not compelled to have, because I think it is be tte r if we can sit en banc. Som etim es if 

you have panels you get conflicts in decisions. We hope by havin g the addition al commissioners for which we ask for the future to have the m in ma ny instan ces , in the less im po rtan t cases at leas t, to write the conclusions of law and so forth, and may be a suggested opin ion, which would enable us to dispose of m ore business. We feel like these addit ion al expenses are justified in th at a good ma ny of our cases be ar int ere st. We hav e over 500 income ta x refund cases. Th ey, as you know , by st at ut e carry a 6-p ercent ra te of intere st. So it is really a m atter of economy, 1 think. On th e tax refu nds las t year I thi nk the re was paid ou t some $600,000 in 

inter est. Some of the se cases are ra th er large. The n we hav e also the requ isition cases and othe r cases on which 

interest is requir ed to be paid. If you have any questions, we shall be glad to attempt to answ er 

them.

Mr. R ooney. I take it th at in your app roach to this, try ing it on 

the basis of one law clerk for two commissioners, th at this is me rely 

an app roa ch to the problem and is n ot ar bit ra ry ?

Judge J ones. Yes. It might be we can ge t by with th at nu mber.

Mr. R ooney. Do you think you can get by with one law clerk for 

thr ee commissioners?

Judge J ones. I do not not know. The Chief, Commissioner, M r. 

Cowen, has a tre me ndous am ou nt of deta il work . We have a provi­ sion for a law clerk for him, a nd I t hink we re ally need one for each two commissioners because a good ma ny of the hea rings are here and we have sometimes two o r thr ee trails going on here a t one time, and even if the hearing s are here the y still are not able to work on making th e 

findings until the y get throu gh the addition al assignm ent.
12

We are a great deal behind in our work and I do not see much chance 

to get caught up until we get additional help along this line. T believe 

you will find we have had less increase than any court in the country 

for the amount of work we turn out.

Mr. Rooney. I think that is a fair statement. We have always 

admired the way you run your court as far as the taxpayer is concerned.

Judge J ones. Some think I am a little tight in these things but I 

think tha t is the only way we can operate efficiently. We do have a 

working corps.

Mr. Rooney. Any questions, gentlemen?

Mr. Magnuson. Is this the first time the budget of the Court of 

Claims has passed $1 million?

Judge J ones. Yes, it is the first time, and it is the first time the *

Government has appropriated as much as $90 billion for its operation, 

and our business grows out of that and we cannot keep it from doing 

so. If the Government ever gets down to the oldtime basis we can 

cut down too. 1 remember some years ago when Congress first appropriated $1 billion and they were panned all over the country. I 

read recently that at that time they asked Uncle Joe Cannon, who 

was then Speaker, about it and he said: “This is a billion-dollar 

country.” Tha t is the only answer he made. Our country, as you 

know, has many problems that are worldwide and 1 do not see much 

hope—I wish I could—of any great reductions in the Government’s 

activities. But certainly as long as conditions remain as they are we 

will have a lot of business in our court.

Mr. Rooney. Any more questions?

Mr. Marshall. How much money will you turn back of your 1962 

appropriation?

Judge Jones. It is a very small amount.

Mr. Peartree. Our estimate is $17,000.

Mr. Marshall. That you will turn back?

Mr. Peartree. That we will turn back.

Judge Jones. There are two additional commissioners this time 

that we did not have before. We have had them part time for 

several months now.

BA CK LO G

Mr. Marsha Li.. You stated you were behind in your work. How 

far behind?

Judge J ones. I would say we are about 4 years behind. *

Mr. Marshall. Pour years behind?

Judge J ones. Yes.

Mr. M arshall. How does that compare with a year ago?

Judge J ones. We pretty nearly held our own the last year. As a 

matter of fact, if you look at the figures it looks like we have improved 

the situation in some respects. We disposed of some 1,687 cases 

that were class cases and made the record look somewhat better, but 

we have about 4 years’ work in trial cases. Now the Department of 

Justice has enough lawyers assigned to our court to pretty nearly 

take care of the work and we have the additional commissioners ami 

we hope we can do better later on.

Mr. Marshall. Thank you very much.

Mr. Rooney. Mr. Bow?
TRA V EL

Mr. Bow. Will the law clerks travel with the commissioners?

Judge J ones. I do not think so. I would like them to stay here and work here. In some instances some judges have taken them, but the commissioners have never taken anyone like tha t out. Mr. Bow. When the trial commissioners travel, who goes with 

them?

Mr. Cowen. Not a soul. We take no clerk or assistant of any 

kind. We travel alone. Mr. Bow. And it is intended to continue that way?

Mr. C owen. We have no intention of changing that practice.

Mr. Bow. Tha t is all.

Repairs and Improvements

Program and financing

[In th ousand s of dollars]

1961 actua l 1962 estimate 1963 estimate

Program by activities: Struc tural and mechanical mainte­ nance (total obligations) (object class 2 5) ............................... 10 10 10

Financing: New obligational au thority (appropria tion) ------ 10 10 10

Mr. Rooney. The next of the two items for the Court of Claims is to be found at page 371 of the committee print. It is entitled '‘Repairs and improvements,” and the justifications with regard thereto are to 

be found at pages 73 and 74 of the justifications. We shall insert at 

this point in the record both of these pages, which indicate the request 

is in the amount of $9,500, the same amount as appropriated for this 

purpose in the last half dozen fiscal years.

(The pages follow:)

JU S T IF IC A T IO N

Lan gua ge changes

No ne.

Objectives

Thi s ap pro pr ia tion is to pr ov id e fo r st ru ctu ra l re pa irs an d im pr ov em en ts to th e C ourt of Cl aims b uildings , incl ud in g th e rep ai rs a nd m ai nt en an ce of th e m ec ha nica l eq ui pm en t. The ap pro pri ati on is f or e xp en diture b y th e A rc hite ct of th e C ap itol . T he es tim at e is su bm it te d a t th e direc tion of th e ch ief ju dg e of th e co ur t. 

Detail ed j us tif ication

The am ount re qu es te d fo r ge ne ra l annual re pa irs; na mely, $5,0 00, is th e sa m e as all ow ed for 1962 an d pr ov id es fo r th e an nual re pai r an d up ke ep of th e hea ting an d pl um bing sy stem s, roo f, an d tw o elev at or s, and for ele ctric al, ca rp entr y, millwo rk, plas tering , iron wor k, ai r- co nd itio ni ng an d re frig er atio n sy stem s, an d 

misc ell an eo us an nu al re pa irs.

The br ea kd ow n of th is it em follow s:

Breakdow n of estimate

R ep ai rs an d m ai nte nan ce of he at in g sy st em ________________ ____________

Rep airs to ro of _____ _ _________________________________________________

Elect rica l re pa irs and re pla cem ents _____________________________________

Plum bing re pair s_______________________________________________________

M ai nt en an ce and re pai r of ele vato rs ____________________________________

C ar pentr y an d millwo rk, pl as te ring an d hard w are ----------------------------------

M ai nt en an ce , ai r- co nd itio ni ng sy st em s_____— — — -------------------------

Misc ellane ou s__________________________________________________________

T ota l ge ne ral annual re pair s_____________________________________

$60 0 

800 

500 

400 

300 

900 

1, 00 0 

500

5. 000
14

The amount requested for annual painting, namely, $4,500, is the same as 

allowed for 1962 and provides for necessary painting throug hou t the building. 

The building is nearly 100 years old and there are numerous air cracks in the 

walls and ceilings, necessitating painting more often tha n would be normally 

required.

The total, therefore, requested for the Court of Claims, fiscal year 1963, under 

“ Repairs and improvements,” is $9,500.

af ra id som eone 

alo ng th a t line . 

M r. R oo ne y. 

Ju dg e J on es. 

Mr. R oo ne y.

M r. R oo ney. Ju dg e Jo ne s, la st ye ar you men tio ne d yo u were no t 

sp en di ng an y mon ey for pai nting in view of th e pros pe ct of ge ttin g 

a new bu ild ing for th e Cou rt of Claim s. W ha t is t he p re se nt si tu at io n?

Ju dg e J on es . Th e pl as te r ca m e off an d came dow n an d we were 

would ge t hurt , an d th er e ha d to be som e repa ir 

We do not in te nd to do mo re th an th at.

You are m ai nta in in g a ho lding op er atio n?

Yes.

An y qu es tio ns ?

T han k yo u very muc h. It is alway s nice to ha ve yo u wi th us. 

Ju dg e J ones . We ap pr ec ia te th e wa y th e co m m itt ee tr eats us.

M onday, J anu ary 15, 1962.

COURTS OF APPEALS, DIS TRICT COURTS, AND OTHER 

JUD ICIAL SERVICES

WITNESSES

HON. MATTHEW F. McQUIRE, CHIEF JUDGE, U.S. DISTRICT COURT,

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

WARREN OLNEY III, DIRECTOR , ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE. U.S.

COURTS

JOHN C. AIRHART, ASSISTANT DIRECTOR, ADMINISTRATIVE

OFFICE, U.S. COURTS

ROYAL E. JACKSON, ASSISTANT CHIEF OF THE DIVISION OF BANKRUPTCY, ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE, U.S. COURTS 

DARWIN H. ANDERSON, ASSISTANT CHIEF OF BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION, ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE, U.S. COURTS 

EDWARD V. GARABEDIAN, BUDGET OFFICER, ADMINISTRATIVE

OFFICE, U.S. COURTS

M r. R oo ne y. Th e ne xt item to wh ich we shall di re ct our at te ntion 

is en tit led “ Cou rts of ap pe als, dis tr ic t co ur ts, and oth er jud ici al 

services” and is to be fou nd a t pa ge 372 of th e co m m itt ee pr in t. 

C om paris on of App ro pr ia ti ons for 1962 W ith E stim at es 1963

The ju stifi ca tio ns co nc erning th is ite m beg in at page 75 of the 

justifi ca tio n boo k. We shall in se rt at th is po in t in th e rec ord th at 

pag e, wh ich indicates th a t th e re que st is in th e am ou nt of $48,794 ,000 , 

wh ich wo uld be an increa se of $1,779 ,750 ov er th e am ount ap pr opr iated to dat e for th e cu rr en t fisc al ye ar .

(T he page follows:)
15

Summary statement relating appropriation estimate to current appropriation

1962 appro pri ati on in a n n u a l a c t..................................... - ................................. - ............. - ................. ............. $44, °3 4,250

1962 ap pro p ri ati o n in s u p p le m en ta l a c t---- -------------------------------------------------------- - ------------------- 2,9 80 ,00 0

Bas e for 1963 ..................................................................................................................................................... 47.01 4.2 50

N et di ffer en ce , 1963 o ver 1962:

R eq u ir em en ts

1962 ap p ro ­

p ria te d

1963

esti m ate

D iffe re nc e, 

incr ea se 

(+ ) or d ecrea se (—)

1. Sal ar ie s of j u d g e s ____________ _________ ____ __ $10 ,100,000 

25, 645,000

$10 .86 0.0 00 +$ 76 0,0 00

2. Salar ies of su p p o rt in g p ers o n n el.................... ............. 27,125 , 000 +1, 48 0, 00 0

3 Fee s n f j u r o r s a n d c o m m i s s io n e r s 4.5 00,00 0 

5.327, 500

1,4 41, 750

4.5 00 .000

4. T ra v el an d m is cel la neo us ex p e n se s,........................ .. 4,7 00 ,000

1,6 09,00 0

-6 27, 500

5. Sal ar ie s an d ex pe ns es , A d m in is tr ati v e Office, 

U.S . C o u rt s_____________________________________ + 167,250

47.0 14. 250 48 .79 4.0 00 + 1,779 ,750 +1 ,7 79 ,7 50

T o ta l e sti m ate for 1963.............................................................. ........................... - ..................................... 48,794. 000

General Statement

Mr. Rooney. Do you have a general statem ent, Judge McGuire?

Judge McGuire. Mr. Chairman, first of all I would like to apologize 

for the absence of Judge Campbell because of bis wife’s illness.

(Discussion off the record.)

Judge McGuire. We have, from the Administrative Office, Mr. 

Olnev and Mr. Airbart and Mr. Anderson and Mr. Garabedian.

I do think the record should indicate that we would desire to thank 

the committee formally for the uniform courtesy it lias extended to us 

over the years we have been appearing here, and last year, with the 

unanimous approval of the Judicial Conference of the United States, a 

letter was written formalizing this.

We are asking for only what we feel is absolutely necessary as a 

consequence of two things: (1) New legislation; and (2) emergency 

in increased workload, also approved by the Judicial Conference, and 

of course the workload with reference to the appointment of new 

judges.

Therefore, as you can see, our statistics from the standpoint of 

business and what we are asking for from the standpoint of funds is 

very much as we requested last year.

The requests can be divided into three major areas:

(1) Moneys necessary to cover costs made necessary by the omnibus 

judge bill.

(2) The amount required to enable application of the new Travel 

Act statute.

(3) The amount required to cope with the continuing increase in 

caseload in bankruptcy courts.

About one-half of the total amount requested is for the first two 

items and the remainder is for the third item.

The Budget Committee of the Judicial Conference felt tha t in 

making a presentation to the Judicial Conference for this yea r’s 

request we should ask only for those additions to the judiciary appropriation which were made essential by new legislation or emergency 

increases in workload, and the Judicial Conference unanimously 

approved this recommendation.
16

Insofar as workload is concerned, I shall say only tha t except for 

bankruptcy cases our statistics remain very much as for last year. 

The details are in the justifications before you.

The requests before you may be broken down into three major areas. 

One is the amount required to cover the costs made necessary by the 

omnibus judgeship bill. The second is the amount required to enable 

us to apply the new Travel Act statu te. The third is the amount 

required to cope with the continuing sharp rise in caseload in the 

bankruptcy courts. About one-half of the total amount requested 

is for the first two of these items, and about one-half for the third. 

These costs were not contemplated in our present appropriations and 

cannot be absorbed.

In passing, I should like to note with respect to the travel legislation 

that the Conference determined tha t the present maximum subsistence 

allowance for judges of $25 per day should remain in this category 

although the act allows an increase to $30 per day.

The Conference also determined tha t until the result of paying 

parking fees as allowed in the new act is determined, that it would 

hold the present mileage rate for automobile travel to 10 cents per 

mile rather than raise it to 12 cents as allowed by the new act.

I should also like to call your attention to the request of the Administrative Office for additional clerical positions in connection with the 

omnibus judgeship bill. This was requested and denied in the House 

last year, and a decision was made not to request restoration in the 

Senate, in the hope the Office could absorb the increased clerical 

workload brought about by the bill. It has become quite evident 

by this time that this cannot be done.

That is the situation in a nutshell, and all of us here will be delighted 

to answer any questions you might have.

Mr. Rooney. Very well. Mr. Olney, do you have a statement?

Mr. Olney. No, sir.

S a l a r ie s of J udg es

Object classification

[In thou sand s of dollars]

1961 ac tu al 1962 estim ate 1963 estim ate

11 Pe rson ne l com pensa tion: Per m an en t position s_____ ____

12 Pe rsonne l b en efits ______________ ____ ______ ___ ___ ___

8,800

284

25

9,756

319

25

10,491 

344 

13 Be nefits for forme r per son nel ■------ ------------ ---------- -------- 25

Tota l obligations__________ ______________ ________ 9,109 10,100 10,860

> W ido ws of Supre me Cou rt Ju stices.

Personnel summary

1961 a ctua l 1962 estim ate 1963 est imate

Tota l n um be r of per man en t pos itio ns:

Ac tive judges _ . - __ - _________ ________ 313 386 386

Senio r an d resigned judg es _ ........................ ............ ......... 81 90 90

Averag e nu mbe r of all ju dges. . . . ___ _______ _____________ 380 420 452

N um be r of judges at e nd of y ear :

Ac tive ju dges . .. _______ __ _____ ___ __________ 291 330 362

Senior an d resig ned ju dges __________ ______________ 86 90 90
Pr og ra m an d financ ing

[In thou sand s of dollars)

1961 actual 1962 estima te 1963 estimate

Progr am by activities: Salaries and benefits (total obligatio ns )-. - ______ ________ ________ 9,109 

91

10,100 10,860

Fin an ci ng- U no bl ig at ed ba la nce la psi ng

New obligational a uth ority (app ropriat ion)_____ _ .. 9,200 10,100 10,860

Mr. R ooney. Th e first of the five items which ma ke up this ap pr opriat ion is th at en titled “ Salarie s of jud ges,” which appears at page 

372 of the comm itte e pr int. We shall insert at this point in the 

record pages 76 through 83 of the justifications.

(The pages follow:)

Statem ent relating app rop riation estimate to current appropriatio n

1962 appro pria tion in an nual ac t........... ...........................................—-............................................... $9,200,000

1962 appro pria tion in supplementa l a ct................... ............................................ - .............- -........... 900,000

Base for 1963............ ....................................................................................................................... 10,100.000

Net difference ,1963 over 1962:

Com pens ation a nd benefits

Req uire men ts

1962 appropria ted

1963

esti mate

Difference, 

increase 

(+ ) or decrease ( —)

$10,100.000 $10. 860, 000 +$760,00 0 +76 0,000

Tot al estim ate for 19 63 .................... . .......................................................................................... 10, 860,000

Statem ent showing analysis by object

Object 1962 estimate 1963 estimate

Increase (+ ) 

or

decrease ( —)

11 Person nel comp ensat ion--------------------- ------ --- ----------

12 Perso nnel benefits__ ____ _________ ___ _______ ____

$9,756,000

319,000

25,000

$10,491,000 

344,000 

25,000

+$73 5,000 

+2 5,00 0

13 Benefits for former personnel (or s urv ivo rs <)-- .................

Tot al obligations _______ _____ ________________ 10,100,000 10,860,000 +76 0,00 0

1

 Widows of Suprem e Cou rt Justices.

Summary of increased requirements for 1963

Nature of expense (or savings):

1. Additional amount required to pay salaries and rela ted benefits of new judges app ointed p urs uan t to the act of May 19, 

1961 (Public Law 87-3 6). Estimated full-vear cost, $1,(560-,

000, less the sum provided in the 1962 Supplem ental Ap- Amount

propriatio n Act, namely $900,000______________________ $760, 000

Increase, 1963 over 1962____________________________ 760, 000
18

JUSTIFICATION

Langiiage changes

None.

Objectives

Fun ds appropriated under this heading are for the salaries and benefits of all 

U.S. circuit and district judges, and all justices and judges who have retire d or 

resigned in pursuance of law. Annuities to surviving widows of Supreme Court 

Justices also are payable from tbip appropriation. For basic sta tut ory authorities, reference is made to section J of the “Digest of Appropriations, the J udiciary,” on file with the Bureau of the Budget and the Appropriations Committees 

of the Congress.

General justification

The Congress, by the act of May 19, 1961, Public Law 87-36, authorized 10 

additional perman ent circuit judgeships, 61 additional permanen t district judgeships, and 2 tem porary district judgeships. Provision also was made for making *

four existing temp orary distric t judgeships perm anen t. The act increased the 

number of authorized circuit judgeships from 68 to 78 and the district judgeships 

from 245 to 308, for an overall increase of 73 judgeships from 313 to 386. A 

listing of the judgeships authorized for the U.S. courts of appeals and the U.S. 

distric t courts before and after passage of the ominbus judgeship legislation is 

includ ed in this document as e xhibit A.

The amount requested for fiscal year 1963, namely $10,860,000, will be sufficient to pay the compensation and related benefits of, on the average, 452 circuit 

and district judges, including the compensation and benefits of approximately 90 

justices and judges who have retired or resigned under sections 371, 372, and 373 

of title 28, United States Code. The estim ate also provides for the continuation 

of the ann uity paymen ts of five widows of Supreme Court Justices. A savings 

(lapse) due to judgeship vacancies equivalent to the compensation and benefits 

of 24 judges was anticipa ted in establishing the budgetary requirements for 1963.

Detailed justifications

The sum of $900,000 was provided in a Supplemental Appropriation Act for 

fiscal year 1962 to compensate approxim ately 50 new judges for an average of 9 

mon ths. The estimate for 1963 provides for the full-year cost of the new judgeships as follows:

N um be r of 

jud ges

To tal s ala ry 

an d ben efits

Pe rsonnel com pensa tion:

Circu it ju dges at $25,500 p er a n n u m ,. ........................................................

D is tric t judges a t $22,500 per a nnum ........... . ......................................... 63

$255,000 

1,417,500

Tota l new ju dg es hi ps ....................................... . ..........

Ded uc t lapses (an tic ipa ted sav ing s du e to vacancies).

Tota l (ne t) per son nel com pe ns ation_____________

Pe rson ne l ben efits:

Life in su ra nc e__________________________________

Hea lth ben ef its.,------------ -----------------------------------

Ju di ci al su rvivors an nui ty fu nd____ ____ _________

73

- 3

70

1,672,500

-67,50 0

1,605,000

4.500

5.500 

45,000

Tot al p ers onnel benef its.

Bud ge ta ry requ ire men ts (full-year cos t)------------------------- ------ . . . ------- 70

Les s fun ds p rovide d in 1962 S up plem en tal App ropriatio n A c t...............................................

N et increase req ue ste d, 1963 over 1962

55,000

1,660,000

-900,00 0

760,000

The amounts included in the above table for personnel benefits represent the 

Government’s contributions into the respective funds for judges electing to 

partic ipate in the judicial surv ivors annu ity system, the group life insurance, 

and health benefits programs. Tin* budgetary requirements were established 

as follows:

Group life insurance.— The sum of $130 per year ($6.50 per thousand per 

vear) is deducted from the salary of a judge for $20,000 life insurance coverage. 

’The Governm ent is required to contribute an amount equal to 50 percent of the 

sum con tributed by th e judge, or $65 per year. One hundred p ercent participatio n 

is anticipated.
19

Hea lth benefits.— The G over nm en t is re qu ired to contr ib ute th e su m of $81 .12 per ye ar to w ar d th e co st of healt h in su ra nc e co ve rage under a family contr act and $33 .80 pe r ye ar un de r a self- on ly co ntr act. Pr em iu m s (p ay ro ll de du ctio ns ) to be pa id by a ju dg e va ry , de pe nd in g up on th e pl an (t ype of co verag e) in wh ich he e lects to e nro ll. On th e ba sis of ou r past exp erienc e, ap pro xi m at el y 98 per ce nt 

par tici pat io n is an tici pa te d. . . .

Ju di ci al survivors an nu ity fu n d .— A ju dg e el ec tin g to p art ic ip ate in th e ju di ci al 

su rv iv or s an nuity sy st em m ust contr ib ute (p ay ro ll de du ct io ns ) a su m eq ua l to 3 pe rc en t of his gross sa la ry . A circ ui t ju dg e wou ld contr ib ute $765 per ye ar and a dis tric t ju dg e $67 5 per ye ar . The G ov er nm en t contr ib ute s a m at ch in g am ount for de po sit in to th e fu nd . Ba sed on curr ent part ic ip ati on of ju dg es in th e sy stem , it is ex pe ct ed th a t ap pr ox im at el y 92 perc ent of th e new ju dg es 

will elec t to pa rtic ip at e.

Mr. Rooney. This request for “Salaries of judges’’ is in the amount of $10,860,000, an increase of $760,000 over the amount appropriated 

for this item for the current fiscal year.

N U M B E R OF JU D G E S

How many judges did this provide for?

J udge McGuire. There were 59 judges out of the total of 73 

appointed and 14 more have not been appointed.

Mr. Rooney. Are the 14 included in this request?

Mr. Olney. Yes, sir.

Mr. Rooney. How may retired judges does this provide for?

Mr. Garabedian. Ninety.

Mr. Rooney. And how many resigned judges?

Mr. Anderson. The 90 includes the resigned. It is 85 and 5.

Mr. Rooney. Five resigned?

Mr. Anderson. Yes.

Mr. Rooney. How much of a lapse is provided?

Mr. Anderson. Twenty-four-position lapse.

Mr. Rooney. If I understand this correctly, since the passage of the omnibus judgeship hill there have been added 59 judges to the 

roster of judges?

Mr. Anderson. Yes, sir. They are on duty.

Mr. Rooney. This requested amount of $10,860,000 can be used 

for no purpose other than the payment of salaries of judges?

Mr. Anderson. That is correct.

Mr. Rooney. And if it is not used it lapses back in the Treasury?

Mr. Anderson. Yes, sir.

Mr. Rooney. How much, if anything, will lapse back at the end 

of 1962? Are you able to compute that as of now?

Mr. Anderson. Yes. At this point we can see that no money will lapse because the supplemental appropriation for the current fiscal year to compensate new judges was $900,000. That was computed on the basis of 50 new judges for an average of 9 months. Actually, we have 59 on board, so we have already used more than that amount and we have dipped into the appropriation as a whole. So it looks like we will need a supplemental to finish out the year. This, of course, depends in large measure on how many are added from now 

to June 30.

Mr. Rooney. Are there any questions with regard to “Salaries of 

judges,” gentlemen?

Mr. Bow. I have only one.
20

B E N E F IT S FO R W ID O W S OF SU PR E M E COU RT JU ST IC E S

On page 77, it is a small item, but why do the widows of Supreme 

Court Justices come under this heading rather than under the heading 

of the Supreme Court?

Judge McGuire. I cannot tell you.

Mr. Rooney. Is tha t because the law requires it?

Mr. Anderson. The law does not require it but under section 375 

of title 28 the widows of Supreme Court Justices are to get $5,000 a 

year each. We have five such widows.

Mr. Bow. But why is not this item under the appropriation for 

the Supreme Court?

Mr. Airhart. I believe it is because when a Supreme Court Justice 

retires he comes under this appropriation.

Mr. Bow. Rather than tha t of the Supreme Court?

Mr. Airhart. Yes, so they apparently figure the widows would be 

widows of retired justices.

Mr. Anderson. All retired Supreme Court Justices arc paid from 

this appropriation.

Judge McGuire. And some do sit on our court of appeals.

Mr. Bow. That is all.

*

u

Salaries of Supporting Personnel

Object classification

[In tho us an ds of dollars]

1961 ac tu al 1962 estim ate 1963 estim ate

Pe rson ne l com pensa tion:

Pe rm an en t posit ion s____________________ . 17,206

4,677 

148

18,477

5,335

70

19.321

5,867 

70

Po sition s oth er than pe rm an en t......... .................................. .

Other person nel com pensati on__________ ______ ________

Tot al p ersonn el c om pe nsation________________ ______ 22,031 23,882 25,258

D irec t o bligations:

11 Person nel co mp ensat ion ____ _____________________ 22,023

1,635

23,874 

1,771

25,250

1,875 12 Pe rso nnel be ne fit s................. ...............................................

To ta l dir ect o bli ga tio ns ................... . ................. _ 23,658

8

25,645

8

27,125

8

Reimbu rsab le ob liga tion s:

11 Pe rso nnel co mp ensat ion ..............................................

Tot al ob lig ati ons___________ __________ _______ 23,666 25,653 27,133

Personnel summary

1961 actual 1962 est im ate 1963 esti mate

Tot al n um be r of per man en t posit ions ____ _____ ____________ 2,760

670

3,378

3,445

2,942

755

3,619 

3,730

3,005

820

3,782

3,839

Fu ll-tim e eq ui va lent of oth er p os ition s___________________

Av era ge n um be r of al l e mp loy ees ______ _ _____ ___

N um ber of em plo yees at end of ye ar __________ ____________
Program and fina ncing

ll n th o u sa n d s o f do llar s)

1961 actu al 1962 es ti m at e 1963 e sti m a te

P ro gra m by ac tiv itie s:

Sa la rie s a n d be ne fit s:

D irec t ob liga tion s _________. _____ 23 ,6 58

8

25 ,6 45

8

27,1 2 5 

8 R ei m burs ab le o b li g ati o n s_______________________ - -

T o ta l o b li g ati o n s........................... ............................

Fi na nc in g: A dv an ce s an d re im b u rs e m e n ts from o th er ac co u n ts---------

U nobli gate d ba la nce la p si n g -----------------------------------------

N ew o bli gat io nal a u th o rit y (a p p ro p ria ti o n )-----------------

23 ,8 66

- 8

93

25 ,6 53

- 8

27,1 33

- 8

23 .75 1 25 ,6 45 27,1 25

Mr. Rooney. The second of the five items is entitled “ Salaries of supporting personnel.” It appears beginning at page 374 ol the committee print, and the details in regard thereto are to be lound at pages S4 through 114. They indicate the request is in the amount of $27,125,000, an increase of $1,480,000 over the amount appropriated 

for this purpose for the current fiscal year. At pages 85a and 86 there will be found a list of the increases 

requested. We shall insert at this point in the record pages 84 through 114 of 

the justifications.

(The pages follow:)

Statement relating appropriation estimate to current appropriation

1962 a p p ro p ri ati o n i n a n n u a l a c t . ..... ......................................................................................................- ............*2 4 ,5 0 0 ,0 0 0

1962 a p p ro p ri ati o n in s u p p le m e n ta l a c t...........................................................................................- .................. 1.1 45,0 0 0

B as e for 1963 ......................................................................................................................................................... 25, 6 45 ,0 00

N e t di ff er en ce , 1963 ov er 1962:

P er so nnel com pen sa ti on 

P er so im el ben e fi ts ............

R eq u ir em en ts

1962 a p p ro ­

p ri a te d

1963

es ti m at e

D iff er en ce , 

in cr ea se 

( + ) or d e ­

cre as e ( —)

$2 3, 87 4, 00 0

1, 7 71 ,0 00

$25. 25 0, 00 0

1, 875, 000

+ $1,3 76 , 0 00 

+ 104 ,000

25. 6 45, CMM) 27, 125. 000 1.4 80 ,0 0 0 + 1 .4 8 0 ,0 0 0

2 7 ,1 2 6 ,0 0 0 T o ta l est im ate fo r 196 3

Statement showing analysis by object

O bj ec t 1962 e st im at e 1963 es ti m at e

In cr ea se ( + ) 

or

dec re as e ( —)

11 P er so nnel c o m p e n s a ti o n .. .................................................- ..........

12 P er so nne l b en e fi ts ................................- ----- --------- ---------------

$23 , 87 4, 00 0 

1, 7 71 ,0 00

$2 5, 25 0, 00 0

1, 87 5, 00 0

+ $ 1 ,3 7 6 ,0 0 0 

+ 10 4. 00 0

T o ta l (d ir e c t) o b li g a ti o n s-------------------------------- ----------- 25 ,6 45 .0 00 27 ,1 25 ,0 00 + 1 .4 8 0 ,0 0 0
22

Analysis of increases requested by class of personnel

E sti m ate , 1962 A dditio nal

pe rs on ne l W it h in -

gr ad e

pro m otion s

O th er

ch an ges

E st im ate , 1963

Pos itions

A m o u n t N u m ­

be r

A m ount P osi ­

ti ons

A m ount

Per so nnel c om pen sa ti on: 

C le rk s of c o u rts ________ 1,351 $8,54 2,0 00

6,1 10,00 0 

2,1 20 ,00 0 

1,2 30,00 0 

742,000

21 $164,000 $139,000

115,600

1,372

888

$8,845 ,000

6,2 46, 000

2,3 50,00 0

1,393,000

754,000

P ro b ati o n s y ste m . . .......... 888 $20,400

C o u rt r ep o rte rs_____ . . . 294 21 230,0 00

125,000

315

C ri ers a ri d m e ss en g e rs .. . 292 21 38,0 00

12,000

313

O th er p ers o n n el________ 117 117

S u b to ta l................. . . 2,94 2 

> 705

18, 744 ,00 0 

5,1 30 ,00 0

63 519,000

441,0 00

304,600

91,000

20,400 3,0 05

J 770

19,588,000

Sec re ta ries a n d l aw c le rk s__ » 65 5,662,00 0

T o ta l, per so nnel co m ­

p en sati o n __________ 3.647 23,87 4.0 00

1,771,00 0

128 960,0 00

75,000

395,600

27,400

20,4 00

1,600

3,775 25,250 ,000

1,875,000

w

P er so nnel b en efi ts ....................

T o ta l, per so nal se rv ­

ices a n d ben efi ts ____ 3,647 25,64 5,0 00 128 1,035,000 423,000 22,0 00 3,775 27,125,000

w

1

 E q u iv a le n t n u m b e r o f ful l- tim e po si tion s.

N o t e.—T h e re q u est for a ddit io nal pers onnel is bas ed e n ti re ly o n t h e o m nib us ju dgesh ip le gi sl at io n an d 

re p re sen ts th e bal an ce o f funds re quir ed to sta ff n ew ju dg es .

Summary of increased requirements for 1963

Na tur e of expense (or savings): Amount

1. Pretrial examiner and staff, U.S. District Cou rt for the

Southern District of New York, authorized for 1962 at

$38,000, requested to be extended for 1963_____________ _________

2. Additional amount required to staff new judges appo inted

pur suant to the act of May 19, 1961 (Public Law 87- 

36). Estimated full-year cost, $2,180,000, less the sum of 

$1,145,000 provided in the 1962 Supplemental Appropriation A ct:

Compensation _________________________ $960, 000

Benefits______________________________ 75, 000

--------------- $1, 035, 000

3. Net cost of within-grade salary advancem ents:

Compensation _________________________ $395, 600

Benefits............... ............. ................. ............. 27,400

--------------- 423, 000

4. Difference between full-year and part-ye ar cost of 15 addition al probation officers and 6 clerk-stenographers au thorized for 1962:

Compfensatibn__________________________ $20, 400

Benefits_______________________________ 1, 600

------------- 22,000

Increase, 1963over 1962....................... ................... ...... 1, 480, 000

JU S T IF IC A T IO N

Language changes

None.

Objectives

This appropriation is for pay men t of compensation and benefits of all supporting 

personnel of the U.S. courts of appeals and the U.S. district courts, with the 

exception of referees in bankruptcy and their clerical assistants. For da ta as to 

the classes of personnel covered and basic statutory authorities, reference is made 

to section K of the “ Digest of Appropriations, the Jud icia ry,” on file with the 

Bureau of th e Budget and the Appropriations Committees of the Congress.
23

General justification

The supporting personnel of the U.S. courts provided for by this estimate are 

required to assist the judges in the conduct of hearings, trials, and other judicial 

functions and to man the component offices of the courts including the Federal 

probation system. The estimate for 1963 provides for the full-year cost of 

secretaries, law clerks, and other personnel required to staff new judges appointed

P

ursuant to the act of May 19, 1961, Public Law 87-36, and for the difference 

etween the full-year and part-year cost of new positions authorized for the 

probation system for fiscal year 1962. Provision also has been made for the net 

cost of w ithin-grade salary advancem ents to be gra nted court personnel and for 

an extension of the au thority for a pretrial examiner a nd staff for the U.S. Distric t 

Court for the Southern District of New York.

The following is a sum mary of the judicial business of both the circuit and 

district courts:

Courts of appeals

The courts of appeals received a record 4,204 new appeals during fiscal year 

1961, an increase of almost 8 percent or 305 cases over the number filed during 

the previous year, and 12 percent more tha n in 1959. These courts also terminated a record 4,049 cases, which is 336 (9 percent) more tha n the number disposed of during 1960, bu t 155 less th an the number filed, resulting in a 7-percent 

increase in the pending caseload to 2,375 on Jun e 30, 1961. The following table 

shows caseload data for the U.S. courts of appeals for the past 10 years:

F il ed T e rm in a te d

P en d in g Filed T e rm in ate d

P e n d in g

Fis ca l ye ar :

1952 ____ _ 3,0 79 

3,2 26 

3, 481

3.0 48 1,859

1,845

F is ca l ye ar :

1957 . 3,701 3,687 2,04 3

1953 ............ 3,240 

3,1 92

1958 _____ 3,694 3, 704 2,033

1954 ___ . . 2,13 4

2,175 

2,029

1959.................. 3,75 4 3,753 2,03 4

1955 ___ . 3.695 3,654

3,734

1960 . _ 3,899 3, 713 2,22 0

1956 ___ 3,5 88 1961 _____ .. 4,204 4,049 2,3 75

Exhibit B shows the flow of cases commenced by source in the courts of appeals 

from 1941 to 1961.

The district courts

Civil cases

There were 58,293 civil cases filed in the district courts during fiscal year 1961, 

exceeding by 2,877 the 55,416 civil cases term inated. The number of civil cases 

pending increased to 64,128 or almost 5 percent. Eliminating the local cases 

filed and t erm inated in Alaska during 1960 where a change occurred as a re sult of 

the transition of the territor ial court to a U.S. district court, civil cases filed in the 

U.S. district courts during 1961 increased 502, or approximate ly 1 percent. The 

patte rn of filings and termin atio ns differed somewhat as between U.S. cases and 

private cases. The following is a comparison of the flow of cases in 1960 and 

1961:

Civil cases filed, terminated, and pending

File d T erm in ate d P endin g

All ci vi l:

1960 ................................................................... . .................................

1961 . . - - _________ _______________________ ____ ___

57, 791 

58,2 93

57,579 

55.416

61,251 

64.128

Per ce nt ag e ch an ge . . ................ ......................... ............... + 0 9 - 3 .8 + 4 .7

U .S . civil:

I960 ............ ............. ...................................................................... 20. 840 20,994 16,0 46

1961 _________________________________________________ 19,843

- 4 .8

19,368 16.521

Per ce nta ge c h a n g e ........................ .. ........ . ................................ - 7 .7 + 3 .0

P riv a te c iv il:

I960 .............. - - ____________ ______ ________________ 36,951 36,585 45,205

1961 ____________ ______________ ______ _____ ____ ___ 38,450

+ 4 .1

36,048 47, 607

- 1 .5 + 5 .3
24

The following table shows the number of civil cases filed, term inated, and 

pending in the U.S. district courts for the past 10 years:

Fis ca l y ea r F iled T erm in ate d P endin g, en d 

of y ea r

1952............................. 58, 428 53,150 60,362

1953__________ . . 64, 001 57 .490 66,873

1954_________________________________________________________ 59,461 57,903 68.431

1955_____________ __________ . ________ ___ __________ 59,3 75 58, 974 68,832

1956......................... ................................................................... 62,391 67. 700 63. 526

1957........ ........... - ______ _________________ ______ _________ ____ 62,38 0 63, 568 62, 338

1958 _______ ________________ . __________________ _____ 67,11 5 61,285 68.168

1959____ ________ ______________________________________ . . . 57,8 00 62,172 63. 796

1960____________ _______ _____________________ _ _________ 1

 57. 791 1 57, 579 61.251

1961_____________________ _______ ________ ____________ _____ 58,2 93 55,416 64,128

1

 P re v io u sl y publi sh ed fig ur es fo r al l ci vi l an d p ri v ate ca ses in 1960 hav e be en ad ju st ed b y su b tr ac ti n g 

1,493 fil ings an d 4,250 te rm in a ti o n s for th e D is tr ic t C o u rt of A la sk a. T hese we re loc al ca ses a n d in th e 

tr a n sfe r of j uri sd ic ti on to th e S ta te co u rt s in F eb ru ary 1960, th es e ca se s bec am e S ta te ca ses an d th er ef ore 

sh o u ld n o t be us ed in a co m par is on of d is tr ic t co u rt w or k w it h th e 1961 fig ur es . Filin gs for 1959 a n d p ri o r 

y ears i ncl ude an e sti m ate d 1,800 to 2,000 su ch ca ses.

N o t e .—See pa ge 31 for ta b u la ti o n ex clu din g A la sk a.

A graphic presentation of civil cases commenced in the U.S. district courts 

during the fiscal years 1941-61 is included as exhibit “C .” Exhibit “D” shows 

the number of civil cases pending in the U.S. district courts at the close of each 

fiscal year since 1952.

Criminal cases

The volume of criminal cases filed annually in the distric t courts continues to 

remain virtually unchanged. During 1961, 28,460 criminal cases were commenced 

in the district courts as compared with 28,137 in 1960, an increase of only 323 

cases. In the last 5 years the trend of filings has been almost level, ranging 

between 28,000 and 29,000 cases a year.

The number of defe ndants prosecuted each year in the U.S. district courts 

also has remained relatively constant. A defe ndant is counted only once, even 

though charged with several offenses in several courts or indictments and is 

counted as sentenced only once even thou gh several concurrent or consecutive 

sentences are pronounced. The following table shows the number of defendan ts 

filed on in original proceedings and the number pending at the end of the year 

for each of the past 5 yea rs:

Fis ca l ye ar File d on P endin g

1957.......................................................................... ...................................................... 34,309 9,8 69

19 58 -_. 35,015 9,948

19 5 9 .. - 35,517 10,558

I9 60 . - - 35,017 10,845

1961____ ___ _______ ________________________________ ________________ 35,139 11,440

To compare 1960 an d 1961, an adjustment m ust be made in the 1960 figures to 

acc oun t for the change of jurisdiction in the District Court of Alaska. From th e 

1960 figure there must be sub tracted 254 defendants filed on who were involved 

in local and State offenses. With this change, the comparison in the criminal 

business of the 91 distric t courts for the last 2 years is as follows:

F iled on P endin g

Fis ca l yea r:

I9 6 0 .. . . __________ ______ - ______________________________ 34,7 63

35,1 39

1.1

10,845

11,440

5. 5

1 9 6 1 .. . ............ ............................................. . ............... - ...................................

P erc enta ge i nc re as e ____ ______________- ________________________________
25

Passport applications

The number of passport applications that the district courts processed during 

the fiscal year 1961 tota led 220,699 or 1,442 less than the 222,141 applications 

processed in 1960, a decrease of less than 1 percent. However, this reduction 

followed a n increase in the previous year (1960 over 1959) of almost 12 percent.

The following is a su mmary of the total passport applications filed, the n umber 

and the percentage of applications processed by the district courts:

Fiscal yea r

To tal

passp ort

appli catio ns

filed

N um be r of

pass[>ort 

ap pli catio ns 

filed in the 

distr ict 

co urt s

Perce nta ge of 

ap plicatio ns 

filed in the 

distr ict 

co urt s

1857_______________ ________________________ ____ ________ 564,387 171,737 30.4

1858................................................... ........................................ 653,074 185,684 28.4

1858_____________________________________________ ____ _ 702,021 197,828 28.2

1860________________________________ __________________ 830,034 222,141 26.8

1961___ _________________________________________________ 845,856 220,699 26.1

The number of separate passpo rt offices maintained by the Department of 

Sta te has increased over the years, resulting in a redu ction of the percentage of 

applications filed in the district courts. Despite this perc enta ge reduction, 

the num ber of passport applications processed by the dis trict courts during the 

past 4 years has increased by alm ost 50,000, or approximate ly 29 percent. 

Petitions for naturalization

During the fiscal year 1961, a total of 104,352 petitions for naturalization 

were filed in the distric t courts as compared with 97,972 in 1960, an increase of 

6,380 or 6.5 perce nt. During 1961, 101,002 aliens were natu ralized, an increase 

of 8,688 or 9.4 percent over the number natu ralized during 1960.

Probation system

A workload of 75 units per officer is generally recognized as the optim um for 

effective probation and parole investigation and supervision. This continues 

to be the goal of the Federal probation system. The following table shows the 

average workload of Federal probation officers for the past 5 years:

E nd of fiscal ye ar

N um be r of 

pro ba tio n 

officers

Average

workload

1957................................ .............. ................................................ 481 85

1958............................ ................................................... 487 86

1958____ _____ ______ ___________________ . .508 83

1960___ _________________ . ______ .506 84

1961_______________ . . .506 85

The increase in th e average workload per officer in 1961 is due primarily to an 

increased supervision load. At the close of fiscal year 1961, there were 35,065 

persons under supervision compare d with 34,343 at the end of 1960, an increase 

of 722 or 2.1 percent. Pro bation officers also were required to conduct a grea ter 

number of investigations, 31,082 in 1961 compared with 30,169 in 1960, an increase 

of 913, or 3 percent. Exhibits E thro ugh I show the number of probatio n officers 

and the workload for fiscal ye ars 1952 th rough 1961.

In 1961 the daily per cap ita cost of prob ation was 57 cents a day, compared 

with $5.26 1

 a day for Federal prisoners in Federal institution s, or a yearly cost 

of $208 compared with $1,919. Both probation and parole help to lower the 

institu tional population and, ultimately , the cost to the taxp ayer. More significant tha n these savings are the social benefits of probation which cannot be

1

 Incl ud in g Fe de ral prisoners confi ned a t local jails u nd er co ntract, the pe r ca pi ta d aily co st is $4.99.
26

measured in dollars and cents. The following table shows the cost of Federal 

probation compared with the cost of Federal imprisonment, fiscal years 1952 

thro ugh 1961:

C ost p er d ay C o st per yea r

P ro b ati o n Im pri so nm en t

P ro b ati o n Im p ri so n ­

m en t

1962... ___________________ . . . . . . . . . . ___________

Ce nts

25. 4 $3.56 $93.08 $1,30 2.9 6

1953. 26.4 3.55 96. 41 1, 295. 75

1954___________ ______ _____________ 26.9 3.41 98.26 1.2 43.19

1 9 5 5 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26.7 3.6 8 97.3 7 1,343.20

1956__________________________________________________ 32.4 3.9 7 118.14 1,449.05

1957............................................................................ 41.3 4.3 8 150. 74 1, 598.70

195 8.. . . . 42.9 4.3 6 156.75 1, 591.40

1 9 5 9 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51 .0 4.8 2 184. 81 1, 759 .30

1 9 6 0 . . . . . . . . . . . ........ .......................................................... 52 .0 5.1 2 190.58 1,8 73.00

1961.......................... ..................... .......... ........... .......... ......... 57.0 5.26 208 .00 1,9 19 .00

Bankr uptcy

Con tributin g to the workload of the district courts is a marked increase in the 

volume of filings in ban kruptcy. The number of bankruptcy cases filed in fiscal 

year 1961 reached another alltime peak of 146,643. The number of cases filed,, 

the numerical increase, and the rate of increase from 1956 thro ugh 1961 follows:

Fi sc al ye ar Cas es f ile d

R ate o f inc re as e

N u m b er

P er ce nta ge

A n n u al C u m u la ­

ti ve

1956 62,0 86

1967 .................................... ............................................... 73; 761 11, 675 18.8 18.8

1958 _____ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . _____________ 91,668 17,907 24.3 47.6

19 59 .. . . . . _______ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100,672 9,004 9. 8 62 .2

1 9 6 0 . . . . . . . . . . . . ____ 110,034 9,362 9. 3 77.2

1961________ ____ ____ _______ _______________________ 146,643 36,609 33 .3 13 6.2

Of the total cases filed in 1961, 89.6 percent were nonbusiness bankruptcies 

(wage earners) and 10.4 percent were business bank ruptcies (which includes 

merchan ts, manufacturers, others in business, farmers, and the professional 

groups). Exhibits J and K show the number of ban kruptcy cases filed and 

pending, fiscal years 1905-61 and the number and ratio of business to nonbusiness 

bankruptcies commenced, fiscal years 1940-61.

On Jul y 1, 1960, there were 94,990 cases pending. During the year 117,943 

cases were closed as compared with 146,643 cases filed, resulting in an increase 

in the pending caseload of 28,700 cases or 30.2 percent. This compares with an 

increase in the pending casejoad in 1960 of 10,719 cases or 12.7 perce nt. The 

number pending on Ju ne 30, 1961, was 123,690, a newr alltime high. The number 

closed in 1961 (117,943) also w’as a new high.

It is estimated th at in 1962 filings in ban kruptcy will approac h 170,000 and 

th at in 1963 the total filings will be in the vicinity of 185,000, o r approximately 

40,000 in excess of number of cases filed in 1961. The filing fee in a straight
bankru ptc y case is $50 , of wh ich $8 is de po sited in to th e ge ne ral fu nd of th e 

Tre as ur y as t he cl er k’s fee. In ch apte r X III cas es (w ag e-ea rner p lans ) th e cle rk ’s fee is on ly $5. If th e curr en t tr end co nt in ue s an d th e 185,000 filin gs fo re ca st for fiscal ye ar 1963 mat er ia liz es , a to ta l of ap pro xim at el y $1,40 0,0 00 wi ll be de po sited in to th e ge ne ra l fu nd of th e U.S. T re as ury re pr es en ting fees fo r serv ice s rend er ed by th e cl er ks’ offices in bankru ptc y ca ses or ap pr ox im at el y $300,00 0 

mo re th an wa s de pos ited in 1961.

Detailed ju stifi ca tio ns

An ap pr op ri at io n of $27,1 25,00 0 is re qu es te d for fiscal ye ar 1963, re pre se nting a ne t increa se of $1,48 0,0 00 ov er th e appro pri at io n for fiscal yea r 1962. Ex clu siv e of th e sum re qu ired in 1963 for w ithi n-g ra de sa la ry a dva nce m en ts an d th e dif ference be tw ee n th e full- ye ar and part -y ear co st of pe rson ne l au th ori ze d in 1962 for th e pro bati on sy stem , th e increa se, 1963 ov er 1962, re pre se nts th e ba lanc e of fu nd s re qui re d to staf f new ju dg es appoin te d purs uant to th e act of M ay 19, 1961, Pu blic La w 87 -36. Prov isi on als o ha s be en m ad e for 1-ye ar ex tens ion of th e au th o ri ty for a pre tr ia l ex am in er and st af f for th e U.S. D is tr ic t 

C ourt for th e Sou th er n D is tr ic t of Ne w York.

Ex ten sio n of au thor ity f or pretr ial exam ine r an d sta ff, sou the rn dis tri ct of N ew Yo rk

The sum of $38,0 00 wa s in clud ed in th e ap pro pri ati on for fisc al yea r 1962 for th e es ta bl is hm en t of a pre tr ia l ex am in er an d st af f in th e U.S . D is tr ic t C ourt for th e So ut he rn D is tr ic t of Ne w Yo rk on a l- vea r ex per im en ta l basis . By reas on of a de lay in th e pa ss ag e of th e 1962 ap pro pri at io n bil l by th e Co ng res s, an d th e lac k of auth ori ty for th e co mm en ce men t of a new pr og ra m or acti v it y und er th e jo in t re so lu tion'm ak in g co nt in ui ng appr opr ia tion s for th e fiscal yea r 1962, it wa s no t po ssibl e to es ta blish and eval uate th e pr op os ed sy st em . The re fo re , it is re qu es te d th a t th e au th ori zati on gra nte d for fiscal yea r 1962 be ex te nd ed for 

1 ye ar. The co urt pl an s on es ta bl ishi ng a pre tr ia l ex am in er div ision sim ila r in ty pe to th a t op er at in g in th e D is tr ic t C our t for th e D is tr ic t of Colum bia. Whil e th e si tu at io n in th e so uth ern dis tr ic t of Ne w Yo rk dif fer s fro m th a t of th e D is tr ic t of Colum bia be ca us e of th e ty pe of litiga tion an d lac k of opport unit y to tr an sf er to a loc al co urt of low er m onet ar y ju risd ic tion , it is be lie ve d th a t with some mo difi­ ca tion s it co uld be m ad e eff ectiv e. So me radi ca l pr oc ed ur al ch an ge s m ust be mad e to redu ce th e ju di ci al tim e sp en t on litiga tion whic h is e ve nt ua lly te rm in ate d w itho ut tria l. The court feels th a t pr et rial disc ov er y he arings be fore court - ap po in te d ex am in ers oper at in g un de r th e im m ed ia te su pe rv isio n an d dir ec tion 

of a special ly assign ed ju dge is th e m os t fea sib le so lu tio n.

Fu nds requ ired to staff new ju dg es

The Co ng res s, by th e act of M ay 19, 1961, Pu blic Law 87 -36, au th or iz ed th e ap poin tm en t of 73 ad dit io nal judg es , 10 fo r th e U.S. co urts of ap pe al s an d 63 for th e U.S. dis tr ic t co urts. The act also es ta bl ishe d ei gh t ad di tional plac es of ho lding co ur t. The fu ll-y ea r co st, co m pe ns at io n an d be ne fits, of su pport in g pe rson ne l re qu ired to st af f th e new ju dg es wa s es ti m ate d at $2,18 0,0 00. T he es tim at e was es ta bl ishe d on th e ba sis th a t ea ch of th e ci rc uit ju dg es will re qu ire a se cr et ar y an d a law cler k an d th a t a d is tr ic t ju dg e will requ ire a staf f co ns istin g of a law cle rk, se cr et ar y, crier, an d a co urt re po rt er . In ad ditio n to th e pe rs on ne l re qu ired to staff th e ne w judg es , pr ov ision wa s m ad e fo r th e em pl oy m en t of 63 co ur troo m de pu ties . T he de pu ties are to be em pl oy ed by th e cle rks of th e U.S. d is tr ic t co ur ts an d ar e to be assig ne d to serv e th e new d is tr ic t judg es . Pro vi sion als o was mad e fo r th e em pl oy m en t of six ad di tional deputy cle rks to serv e as 

division al (res iden t) dep uties a t th e new pla ce s of ho lding co ur t. The su m of $1 ,14 5,0 00 wa s pr ov id ed in a su pp le m en ta l ap pro pri at io n act fo r fiscal ye ar 1962 wh ich was sufficie nt to staf f ap pro xi m at el y 50 new ju dg es fo r an av er ag e of 9 m on th s. T he es tim at e for 1963 includ es a re qu es t for an add itio nal $1,03 5,0 00 re pr es en ting th e ba lanc e of fu nd s re qu ired to staff all o f th e new ju dges fo r a full ye ar. The est im ate ta ke s in to ac co un t an anti ci pat ed sa ving s (la pse)
28

due to vacancies. The following ta ble shows the annu al bud geta ry requirements 

rela ting to the omnibus judgeship legislation and the balance of fund s required 

for 1963:

N um be r of 

position s

Tot al salar y

Pe rsonnel comp ensat ion :

Ju dg es ’ staf fs:

La w clerks, GS-10, at $6,995 per a nnum _______________________

Secre taries, GS -9, a t $6,435 per a nnu m_____________________ _

Ass ista nt se cre taries, GS-7, at $5,355 per annum ________________

C ou rt rep orters, un grad ed at $7,630 per annum ..................................

C ou rt rep orters, un graded, at $7,000 pe r a n n u m .. ...........................

Criers, GS -5, a t $4,345 per an num____________ ________________

Clerks’ offices (d istri ct cou rts):

Cou rtr oo m de pu tie s, GS-7, at $5,355 pe r a nnum ___ ___________

D ep ut y clerks (div isio nal offices) GS- 5, at $4,345 per a nnum ____

Tot al, pe rm an en t________ ____ _____ ________ ____ ___ _______

Ded uc t lapses (an tic ipa ted saving s du e to vacanc ies)___________

Net pe rm an en t (average n um be r, net s al ar y)............... . ................

73

73

3

31

32 

63

63

6

344

( - ) 12

Perso nnel benefits:

R et irem en t........................................................................... $131,500

Life in su ra n ce......................................... 6,500

Hea lth ben ef its...................................................................................... 17,000

To tal, pe rso nnel b enefi ts .._____ ______________ _______

Bud ge tary r eq uiremen ts (full-year co st)__________ _____

Less fu nd s prov ided in 1962 su pp lem en tal a pp ro pr ia tio n act

N et increas e r eque ste d, 1963 over 1962____ _______ ______

332

332

$511,701

470,704 

16,099 

236,642 

224,307 

273,873

338,083

26,083

2,097,492 

( - ) 72,492

2,025,000

155,000

2,180,000 

( - ) 1,145,000

1,035,000

The s tatutory authority for the above listed positions and the basis for having 

fixed the grade and salary follows:

Law clerks and secretaries

The au tho rity for the app ointment of law clerks and secretaries by circuit 

judges is contained in section 712 of title 28 of the United States Code. District 

judges by autho rity of section 752 of title 28, United States Code, may appoint 

necessary law clerks and secretaries. Consistent with the language of the appropriation for “Salaries of supp orting personnel” the compensation of secretaries 

and law clerks of circuit and district judges shall be fixed by the Director of th e 

Adm inistrative Office of the U.S. Courts without regard to the Classification Act 

of 1949, as amended, except that the sa lary of a secreta ry shall conform with th at 

of the general schedule grades (GS) 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, or 10, as the appointing judge 

shall determine, an d the salary of a law clerk shall conform with th at of the general 

schedule grades (GS) 7, 8, 9, i 0, 11, or 12, as the app ointing judge shall determine, 

subject t o review by the Judicial Conference of the United States if reque sted by 

the Director, such determination by the judge otherwise to be final. The appropriation act further provides, “T hat (exclusive of step increases corresponding 

with those provided for by title V II of th e Classification Act of 1949, as amended, 

and of compensation paid for tem porary assistance needed because of an emergency) the aggregate salaries paid to secretaries and law clerks appointed by one 

judg e shall not exceed $15,950 per annum, except in the case of the chief judge 

of each circuit and the chief judge of each district court having five or more distri ct judges in which case the aggregate salaries shall not exceed $21,305 per 

ann um.”

The amount requested herein for law clerks and secretaries to judges is based 

on the classification of law clerks in grade (GS) 10, at $6,995 per a nnum and secreta ries in grade (GS) 9, a t $6,435 per annum. On this basis, the salaries of law 

clerks and secretaries to the new judges would aggregate $13,430 which is $2,520 

below the dollar limitation of $15,950. The grade classifications will, of course, 

vary depending upon the qualifications of the appointees. However, based on 

past experience, it is expected th at the law clerks and secretaries to the new 

judges will, on the average, be classified in grades GS-10 and GS-9, respectively. 

Court reporters

Under the provisions of section 753 of title 28 of the United States Code, each 

distric t court of the United States shall app oint one or more court reporters. 

The number of reporters and their salaries are determined by the Judicial Con-
ference of the United States. Such repo rters shall attend all sessions of th e court 

to record verbatim, by shorthan d or mechanical means, all proceedings in criminal 

cases and oth er cases unless the parties ther eto, with the approval of the presiding judge, shall specifically agree to the con trary. The number of repo rters presently has been fixed by the Judicial Conference at one reporter for each distric t judge, except in a few districts where the ratio is slightly higher. The 

Judicial Conference, consistent with the provisions of section 753(e) of title 28 of 

the United States Code as amended by the Federal Employees Salary Increase Act of 1960, Public Law 86-568, fixed the salaries of metropolitan reporters at $7,630 per annum and the salaries of nonmetropolitan reporters at $7,000 per 

annum . The amount requested herein for the salaries of court reporte rs (31 at 

$7,630 and 32 a t $7,000) is consistent with this schedule.

Criers

Each distric t judge by autho rity of section 755 of title 28 of the United States 

Code may app oin t a crier for the court in which he presides who shall perform 

also the duties of bailiff and messenger. The Director of the Adm inistrative 

Office of the United States Courts is authorized by section 604(a)(5) of title 28 

of the United States Code to fix the compensation of criers. The judicia l conference of the United States at its March 1960 session, based on a recom mendation contained in a joint repo rt of the Committee on Supporting Personnel and 

the Committee on Court Administration, approved the classification of criers in 

grade GS-5.

Courtroom deputies

Additional personnel will be required in the offices of the clerks of the U.S. 

district courts for assignment to the new judges to serve in the cap acity of courtroom deputies. The autho rity for the app oin tment of these deputies is contained in section 751(b) of title 28 of the United States Code. Provision has been made 

for 63 courtroom deputies or one deputy for each of the 63 judges to be appo inted 

to the U.S. dis tric t courts.

A courtroom deputy is responsible for representing the clerk of court in matters 

relating to courtroom adm inistratio n and proceedings. He confers with at ­

torneys; calls cou rt calendar; notes the appearance of counsel in ma tte rs before 

the court; swears witnesses and inte rprets; impanels the jur y and administers oaths to jurors; records proceedings and rulings for minutes of th e court, and files 

exhibits. He also prepares verdicts and judgments for the signature of the judge, prepares certified copies, notifies counsel of entry of judgment, keeps records of 

atte ndance of jurors, is responsible for correct entry of judgments and other 

actions of cour t in dockets, order books, and other court records. In addition, he taxes costs; prepares statistical records of cases; assists in general work of the 

clerk’s office when not engaged in courtroom duties.

Personnel benefits

In addition to the amount th at will be required to compensate the law clerks, 

secretaries, and oth er supporting personnel, it is estim ated th at on an annu al basis the sum of $155,000 will be required for related personnel benefits—Governmen t’s contributions under the Civil Service Retirement Act, as amen ded, the 

Federal Employees Group Life Insurance Act of 1954 and the Federal Employees 

Hea lth Benefits Act of 1959. The bud geta ry requirements were established as 

follows:

Retirement

All of the positions requested herein are expected to be covered under the Civil 

Service Retire ment Act. The employees will be subject to withholdings equal 

to 6)£ pe rcen t of the ir basic salary. The Government is requ ired to con trib ute 

a m atching amount for deposit to the credit of the civil service retirem ent fund. 

Life insurance

Employees who do not waive life insurance coverage are subject to biweekly 

payroll deductions at the rate of 25 cents per thousand dollars of insu rance, or 

$6.50 per thousa nd per year. The Government shares the cost of the insurance 

by con tributin g into the fund an amount equal to 50 percent of the sum con­ trib ute d by the employees, or $3.25 per year per thousand dollars of insurance 

coverage. Based on current partici pation in the life insurance program , it is 

expected that only 8 percent of the employees will waive life insurance coverage.
30

Health benefits

Empl oy ee s may elec t to part ic ip ate in th e G ov er nm en t’s hea lth be ne fit s pro ­

gr am . The cost of hea lth in su ra nc e is sh ar ed by th e em ploy ee s and th e G ov er nm en t. The pr em iu m s to be pa id by th e em ploy ee s (p ay ro ll de du ctio ns ) var y 

de pe nd in g up on th e ty pe of co ve rage . The G ov er nm en t con tr ib ute s $81 .12 pe r 

annum to w ar d th e co st of a fa m ily co ntr ac t; $33 .80 pe r year to w ar d th e co st of 

a self- on ly co ntr ac t, an d $4 7.32 pe r ye ar to w ar d th e co st of a family contr act for 

a female with a nondep en den t hu sb an d. Ba sed on curr en t part ic ip at io n by 

co ur t em ploy ee s in th e hea lth be ne fit s pr og ra m , it is es ti m ate d th at 85 per ce nt of 

th e new em ploy ee s will elec t to par tici pat e. The cost to th e G ov er nm en t per 

em pl oy ee is ex pe ct ed to av er ag e ap pro xi m at el y $60.

WithiinUgrade salar y advan cem ents

All of th e pe rson ne l pro vi de d for by th is appro pri at io n, w ith th e ex ce pt ion of 

cler ks of co ur t, court re port er s, N at io nal Par k Com miss ione rs an d oth er officers 

and em ploy ee s se rv ing in un gr ad ed po sitio ns a t ra te s fixed by th e Ju di ci al Co nferenc e, are su bj ec t to th e pr om ot io na l pl an for ju di ci al pe rson ne l an d will be 

gra nte d st ep increa ses co rr es po nd in g w ith thos e pr ov id ed for by titl e VII of the' 

Class ifi ca tio n Act of 1949, as am en de d.

I t is es tim at ed th a t th es e w ith in -g ra de sa la ry ad van ce m en ts will co st $423,00 0 

of whic h $39 5,6 00 re pre se nts increa se s in co m pe ns atio n an d $27 ,40 0 re la te d 

be ne fits—G ov er nm en t co ntr ib uti ons to th e civ il service re tire m en t fu nd and fo r 

gr oup life in su ra nc e. The es ti m at e, wh ich re pr es en ts ap pr ox im at el y 80 per ce nt 

of th e full pote ntial co st of st ep inc reases, is net of anti cip ate d saving s du e to 

tu rn over of pe rson ne l an d th e fill ing of va ca nc ies a t lower ra te s of pa y.

Differenc e between fu ll-y ea r an d part-year cost of new po sit ions author ized fo r the

probation syste m

The Co ng res s for fiscal yea r 1962 auth ori ze d 15 addit io nal pro ba tion officers 

and 6 ad di tion al cl er k-s te nog ra pher s for th e pro ba tion sy st em . In antici pat io n 

of a de lay in filling th e ne w po sitio ns , th e do lla r am ount re qu es te d ha d be en 

ca lc ula te d on th e ba sis of th e officers an d th e clerks s er vi ng f or an av erag e of on ly 

10 m on th s. In as m uc h as th e sa vi ng s will not be re alized du ring 1963, an additiona l $22 ,00 0 will be re qu ir ed , re pre se nting th e dif ferenc e (2 m on th s prov ision) 

be tw ee n th e fu ll- ye ar an d p art -y ear co st of th e new po sitio ns .

A D D IT IO N A L E M PLO Y EE S R E Q U E ST E D

Mr. Rooney. There is a request here for how many additional 

employees?

Mr. Anderson. 109, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Rooney. 128; is it not?

Mr. Anderson. You are looking at page 85a. It shows 128 there; 

65 is for law clerks and secretaries. vYe carry them on a full-time 

equivalent basis. As a judge goes, we drop his staff—they are carried 

on a full-time equivalent basis. So this is made up on a weird basis. 

It is the number less the lapse for last year plus what we need for this 

year, and it comes to 65 full-time equivalent. That is how we come 

to 128.

Mr. Rooney. Is this request for additional personnel based entirely 

on the omnibus judgeship legislation?

Mr. Anderson. Yes, sir.

N U M BER OF C IV IL CA KE S F IL E D , T E R M IN A T E D , AN D PEN D IN G

Mr. Rooney. Looking at page 91 of these justifications we find a 

table. It would indicate that the number of cases terminated in 1961, 

the past fiscal year, is lower than any year since 1952. How do you 

explain this?

Mr. Olney. That, I believe, has to do with the change in Alaska.

Mr. Rooney. Tell us about that. How do you work that into 

t hese figures?
31

Mr. Olney. Page 92 has an explanation.

Mr. Rooney. It has a statement. I do not know if it is an explanation or not.

Mr. Olney. When Alaska was a territory there were added into the figures filings and terminations for the Federal court for all the proceedings they had, whether they were under territorial statu tes or not. When it became a State, actions of tha t type and kind were taken out of the U.S. district court and transferred to the State court system and are handled there. Because they were included in former years and not included after statehood, it makes the com­ parison of the figures quite deceptive. That is the reason for those 

differences.

Mr. Rooney. Will you please add another column to the figures at page 91 which would indicate comparative figures beginning in 1952 and including 1961 without the Alaska cases so we can understand it 

more thoroughly than we do at the moment?

Mr. Anderson. Yes, sir.

(The information requested follows:)

Civil cases filed, terminated, and pending in the U.S . district courts for the past

10 years

F is ca l ye ar F il ed T e rm in ate d

T e rm in ate d

(e xc lu di ng

A la sk a)

P en d in g , 

en d of 

year

1952 _______________________________ 58. 428 53,150 (51,861) 60,36 2

1953 _________ __________ _______________ 64,001 57,490 (56,011) 66,87 3

1954 _____________ ___________________ 59,461 57,9 03 (56,381) 68,431

1955 _______ ______________________ 59,3 75 58,9 74 (57,2 69) 68,83 2

1956 _ _ __________ _______ _______________ 62,3 94 67,7 00 (65,4 74) 63,52 6

1957 ____ _______ _____________________________ 62,3 80 63,568 (61,625) 62, 338

1958 ____________________________________ 67,1 15 61,285 (59,2 95) 68,16 8

1959 ____ ____________________________ 57,8 00 62,172 (60,241) 63,79 6

I960 .......... ......... - ____ ___________________ 59,284 61,8 29 (57,4 49) 61,251

1 9 6 1 .- .........— ----------------- -------------------------------- 58,2 93 55,4 16 (55,2 97) 64,12 8

PR O B A TIO N SY STEM P E R S O N N E L C O M PEN SA TIO N

Mr. Rooney. What is this item at page 85a of the justifications, 

$20,400, for the probation system?

Mr. Anderson. This committee last year authorized 15 additional probation officers and 6 clerks on a 10-month basis. This is to provide 

full-year salaries for these positions.

Mr. Magnuson. Excuse me, Mr. Chairman. You mean this $20,400 is the difference between a 10-month period 

and a 12-month period?

Mr. Anderson. Yes, sir.

P R E T R IA L E X A M IN E R STA FFS

Mr. Rooney. What is the status of the $38,000 which was allowed last year for the establishment of a pretrial examiner staff in the 

southern district of New York?

Mr. Olney. Tha t money, of course, did not become available until the bill was passed in September, so it has barely gotten off the ground. I understand some appointments have been made bu t they were not made until around the end of October or first of November, as I recall.

S3455— 62- 3
32

Mr. R ooney. And wh at is the status of the Distri ct of Columbia 

pr etria l examin er staff?

Ju dg e M cGuir e. As far as the District of Colum bia is concerned, 

I am v ery pleased to report th at the ex per iment has been v ery successful as far as we are concern ed. It has relieved one jud ge com pletely 

from the necessity of havin g anything to do with pretria l work, and 

in some circ umstance s it lias relieved the tim e of two judges. We are 

looking into furth er im ple me nta tion of this wi tho ut the dele gation 

of judicial power, which, of course, we cannot do. Bu t 1 can say th at 

as far as the District of Colum bia is concerned it has been very 

successfu l.

Mr. R ooney. Any questions, gentlem en? Mr. Bow.

IN C R E A SE S TO IM PL E M E N T O M N IB U S JU D G E S H IP LEG IS LA TIO N

Mr. Bow. Under the om nib us judgeship bill do I un de rst an d th at 

the cost, so far as judges’ salaries are concern ed, th at the add itio nal 

judg es’ cos t each year will be $1,660,000?

Mr. Anderson. Yes, sir.

I have a sta tem en t of the appro priat ion s mad e for this year and 

req ueste d for 1963 all rolled up bea ring on the judges hip legislation. 

If you would like to look at this .

Mr. Bow . Yes; I would.

Mr. Anderson. From thi s it may be seen that the sa laries of judge s 

tot al $1,660,000. There was approp ria ted this year $900,000 and we 

are ask ing for the difference now.

For salaries of su pp ortin g pers onnel, the total estim ate is $2,180,000 

and approp ria ted in the supplem ental for 1962 was $1,145,000 with 

the difference being $1,035,000 req ues ted this year.

Travel and misc ellan eous expense s is shown as $450,000 as a tot al 

estim ate with $187,000 ap prop ria ted in 1962 and req ueste d for 1963, 

$263,000.

For the Ad ministrative Office, the total estim ate is $125,000; a pp ropriat ed in 1962 was $15,000 and the request is for the difference of 

$110,000 for 1963.

Now we come to the no nrecurrin g costs.

Fo r tra vel and miscellan eous expenses, $733,000 is the t ota l est imate 

and thes e are the am ounts nee ded to place the general office e quipment 

and lawbooks in the offices of the judges. Then, you see, we do not 

need th at sum the second ye ar. We have shown this as a deduction 

and th at is for abo ut 50 judges, roughly.

Fo r the rem ain der of the jud ges, we say we ne ed $330,000 this y ear 

so th at the appro pri ations req ueste d nam ely, wh at we received this 

ye ar an d wha t we a re ask ing for 1963, will total $4,753,000.

Th ere is one furth er ste p in this th at next year the $330,000 will 

be shown as a ded uct. Th en we wind up with only the recu rrin g 

costs.

In oth er words, simply, the se appro priation s will have bee n increased 

as a continuing thing by $4,415,000; th at is the stor y in a nutshell.

Mr. Bow. Tha t is wh at it will cost you each year from now on for 

the addit ion al judg es?

Mr. Anders on. Th at is c orrect.

Mr. Bow. May I ask this questio n------

Mr. R oon ey. May I in te rrup t?
33

It might be well to insert at this point in the record the document 

passed across the table with regard to increases in judiciary appropriations required to implement the omnibus judgeship legislation.

Mr. Bow. Thank you.

(The document referred to follows.)

Increases in judiciar y appropriations required to implement the omnibus judgeship

legislation

App ropriatio n

Num - Tot al 

be r estim ate

N um ­

ber

Appropr iated,

1962

N um ­

be r

Inc rease 

requ es te d 

for 1963

Rec ur ring costs:

Salaries of jud ge s.................................

Salaries of su pp or tin g pe rson ne l— 

Tr av el an d mis cellan eou s expenses. 

Adm in istra tiv e o ffice____________

Tota l.......................... .............. .........

Non recu rri ng costs:

Tra ve l a nd m iscellane ous e xpenses. 

Adm in istra tiv e o ffice____________

To tal .

73 $1,660 ,000

344 2,1 80, 000

____ 450,0 00

21 125,000

4,4 15,00 0

733,0 00

330,000

8,000

5,4 86,00 0

50

235

285

$900,000

1,1 45, 000

187,000

16,000

2,2 47,00 0

733,000

2,9 80, 000

23

109

21

153

$760,000

1,035,000

263,000

110,000

2,168,000

-7 33 ,000

330,000

8,00 0

1,773,000

Mr. Bow. To w hat extent are the increases as found on page 85—A 

in the first group of 63 additional employees related to the new 

judges?

Mr. Anderson. All of them.

The 21 additional deputy clerks come about this way: Of the 73 

new judgeships, 63 were district judgeships and 10 were circuit judgeships. In this area we are talking about courtroom deputies, first. 

The appropriation for 1962, the current year, provided funds for 42 

and the 21 is the difference between 63 and 42.

Mr. Bow. This is occasioned because of the increase in judges 

under the omnibus judgeship bill?

Mr. Anderson. These persons will serve as deputies under the 

new judges. Mr. Bow. This will be in addition to the ones shown on the sheet 

you have handed across the table?

Mr. Anderson. The 21 we are speaking of are in the 109 requested 

for 1963. This is part of tha t 109 and this statement you have in 

your hand is all inclusive.

* May I refer you to page 104 where there is a detail of the staff 

and perhaps tha t will explain it.

If you would like, I will go down the line.

Mr. Bow. Wait a minute here.

• Mr. Anderson. All right, sir.

D IS C R EPA N C Y IN N U M B E R OF A D D IT IO N A L E M PL O Y E E S R E Q U E ST E D

Mr. Bow. In your additional personnel shown on page 85-A, you 

show a total of $1,035,000.

Mr. Anderson. Yes, sir.

Mr. Bow. You show an additional 128 employees; is tha t right? 

Mr. Anderson. Yes, sir.
34

Mr. Bow. On the sheet which you have ju st ha nd ed to us across 

the tab le, you show the am ou nt of $1,035,000 and this shows 109 

employees?

M r. Ande rson. T hat is correc t.

M r. Bow. Does this dis cre pancy come ab ou t because of the 

expla natio n you have ma de to the chairma n a few mi nutes ago as to 

the weird me tho d you ha ve of comp uting the nu mber of peop le 

em ployed ?

M r. Ande rson. Ex actly , M r. Bow. Th ere is no other difference 

an d th at is i t. We could n ot carry law clerks and sec retaries as pos itions bec ause when a judge ha s served his whole life as a judge and dies, 

we ha ve an extra law clerk position to assig n to someone else, so we 

dro p it and pick up a new one for a jud ge coming along. There is 

a turn ov er and we would be up to here [indicating] in those positions 

if we did n ot rim it that way. We call the m a fu ll-time eq uiv ale nt and 

th at is alm ost t he w ay it h as to be done, as I see i t.

Mr. Bow. I thou gh t we sho uld have an underst andin g because we 

ha ve two differen t figures.

Mr. Anderson. I reco gnize th at an d th at is the exp lanatio n.

M r. Cede rbe rg. Will yo u yield to me?

Mr. Bow. Yes.

Mr. Cederberg. Wo uld no t this tab le be a littl e clea rer if, in the 

last colum n, you said, ' ‘Incr eas es req ueste d for 1963” ra th er than j us t 

“req ue ste d for 1963” ?

I think th at, for someone looking at it, they would un derst and it 

be tte r.

Mr. Anderson. I sho uld be glad to add th at word upon pu tti ng 

th at in the record, with th e ch airm an ’s perm ission.

M r. Cede rbe rg. “I ncrea ses r equeste d for 1963.”

Otherwise, it appears th at------

M r. R ooney. Will you plea se correc t th at in the record?

M r. Anderson. Yes, sir.

Ju dg e M cGui re . You a re look ing at page 85(a)?

M r. Bow. Yes.

M r. R ooney. Yes, sir.

Ju dg e M cGui re . Tha nk y ou.

Mr. Bow. That is all.

Tha nk y ou, Mr. Ch airma n.

M r. R ooney. Mr. Ceder ber g?

F A C IL IT IE S FO R N E W JU D G E S

M r. Cederberg. In ad ditio n to these req uests because of the 

rece nt legislatio n, you are also req uesting, I assume, addit ion al fun ds 

throug h the appro priat ion for facilities for thes e new judges?

M r. Anderson. Th e facilities for the new judges are no t in these 

ap pro priat ion s. Th ey come in appro priation s to the Gen eral Services 

Ad mi nis tra tio n.

Mr. ( ederber g. T realize th at bu t I am just wondering , have you 

req ue ste d funds for th at from the Gen eral Services Administration?

M r. Anderson. Yes.

M r. Airha rt. We are w ork ing with them rig ht no w on the r equ est.

Mr. Cede rbe rg. Do you have any idea wh at the am ou nt will be?

Mr. Airha rt. The total am ou nt for new constru cti on, which is
35

actually renovation and the changing of buildings, GSA presently 

estimates will come to just about $17 million

Mr. Cederberg. Could you provide for the record the locations 

where these will occur?

Mr. Airhart. Yes, sir.

Mr. Cederberg. If there is no objection, Mr. Chairman, could we 

do that?

Mr. Rooney. Very well.

Mr. Cederberg. That is all I have.

(The information requested follows:)

L o catio n s at W h ic h A ccom m odati ons Ar e R e q u ir e d f o r N e w J u d g e sh ip s

C r e a t e d by P u b lic L aw 8 7 - 3 6

Alabama:

Birmingham.1

Tuscaloosa 2

 (for circuit judge).

Alaska:

Anchorage.3

Fairbanks.3

Arizona: Phoenix.®

Arkansas:

Little Rock.1

Location undetermined.

California:

Los Angeles 1

 (for two district judges).

San Franqisco.4

Sacramento.®

Colorado: Denver.®

Connecticut:

Hartford (temporary suite for one judge, second judge to occupy existing 

facilities, new7

 building under construction).

New Haven.1

Florida:

Miami.3

Location undetermined.

Georgia:

Atlanta (office suite for circuit judge and courtroom, jury room and office 

suite for district judge).

Newnan.2

Illinois: Chicago (new office suite for one district judge, renovation of existing 

facilities for second district judge, one office suite for circuit judge).

Indiana:

Indianapolis.1

Location undetermined.

Iowa: Location undetermined.

Kansas:

Wichita 2

 (for circuit judge).

Location undetermined.

Louisiana:

Baton Rouge.®

New’ Orleans (one suite for circuit judge, office suites and courtrooms for 

two district judges).

Lafayette (refurbish temporary quarters in parish courthouse, extension of 

post office building required to provide permanent courtroom, judge’s 

suite and other court offices).

Maryland: Baltimore (two temporary judges’ suites and remodeling of small 

hearing room for courtroom use until two permanent courtrooms, jury rooms, 

and judges’ suites can be provided).

Massachusetts: Boston.1

Michigan: Detroit 1

 (for tw’o district judges).

Mississippi: Jackson.1

Missouri: Kansas City (judge’s suite and equip court of appeals courtroom for 

jury trials).

See footnotes at en d of table, p. 36.
36

Nevad a: Location undetermined.

New Jersey:

Cam den .1

Trenton .2

Newark. 2

New York:

Brooklyn (temporary office suites for two distric t judges until new building 

completed).

Manhatta n (office suites for three circuit judges, five courtrooms, renovation 

of existing courtroom and six suites for distric t judges).

North Carolina:

New Bern. 2

Greensboro (nonjury courtroom and judge’s office suite).

Charlo tte 3 (for circuit judge).

Ohio:

Cleveland 1 (for two distric t judges).

Youngstown.3

Cincinnati.4

Oklahoma: Oklahoma City.4

Pennsylvania:

Philadelphia (one c ircuit jud ge’s suite and two courtroom s and three suites 

for district judges).

Scranto n.4

Wilkes-Barre. 4

Pittsbu rgh 1 (for two d istrict judges).

Pu erto Rico: San Ju an .1

Sou th Carolina: Greenville.2

Tennessee:

Memphis (tem porary office suite pending completion of new building).

Greenville.3

Nashville. 4

Texas:

Dallas. 1

Fort Worth. 3

San Antonio.3

Hou ston .5

Virginia:

Richm ond (courtroom, two c ircu it judges’ suites and libra ry).

Alexandria 3 (for circuit jud ge) .

Washington: Spokane 1 (temporary facilities pending construction of new 

building).

F ees of J urors an d C om m is si oner s

Object classification

[In thousand s of dollars]

1961 actual 1962 estimate 1963 estimate

11 Personnel compensation:

Fees of U.S. com missione rs____ _____ . . .......... 800

10

2,379

750

10

2,350

750

10

2.350

Fees of jury commissioners.............................. ...............

Fees of jurors .......... . . .................. ...... ........ ............

Total personnel compensation ______ 3,189 

30

1,325

55

3,110 

30

1,300

60

3,110

30

1,300

60

12 Personnel benefits . ____ ___ - .............-

21 Travel and transportatio n of persons (ju ror s)__________

O th er se rv ic es tnie al s a n d lodeine furnished iurors l. - -__

To tal obligations......... ....................... ........ ....................... 4,598 4,500 4.500

1

 N ew courtroom, jury room, judge’s suite , witness room, reporte r’s office inclu ding new furniture. 

* New judge’s office suite onlv including new furn iture.

’ Renovation of existing facilities includin g new fu rnitur e where required.

« Fac ilities available, f urniture requirem ents only.

’ Facilities available, no furniture require ments.
37

Program and financing

[In tho us an ds of dollars]

1961 ac tu al 1962 estim ate 1963 estim ate

Prog ram b y act ivities:

Fee s a nd rela ted ben efits o f U .S. Co mm ission ers.................

Fee s of jur y comm issione rs . . . ............................ ................ . .

830

10

3,758

780

10

3,710

780

10

3,710 Fees, expenses, an d costs of ju ro rs--------------------------------

To tal obliga tion s __________ .. ______ _____ 4, 593 

37

4,500 4,500

Financing : Un obligate d ba lan ce la psing

Ne w obligational au th ori ty (a ppro pri at io n).-. ................. 4,635 4,500 4,500

Mr. Rooney. If there are no further questions with regard to 

“ Salaries of supporting personnel,” we shall proceed to the third 

of the items tha t make up the appropriation for courts of appeals, 

district courts and other judicial services, entitled “Fees of Jurors and 

Commissioners.” Tt is to be found at page 378 of the committee 

print.

The request is in the amount of $4.5 million, the same as appropriated for this purpose in the current fiscal year.

We shall insert at this point in the record pages 115 through 122 

of the justifications.

(The pages referred to follow:)

Statement relating appropriation estimate to current appropriation

1962 appr op ria tio n In an nu al a ct....................... . ........................................................................... . ........... $4,500,000

Bas e for 1963........................................................ . ............................................... . .......................................... 4,500,000

N et d iffe rence, 1963 ov er 1962:

Req ui re m en ts

1962 ap propr iated

1963

es tim ate

Difference, 

increase 

(+ ) or de ­

creas e (—)

Jury co sts................................................. ....................... .. $3, 720,000 $3, 720,000

Co mm ission ers ’ fees a nd rel at ed be ne fits____ 780,000 ' 780,000

T ota l........ ..................... ................ ............ .............. 4. 500,000 4, 500,000

To ta l e sti mate for 1963....................................... ....................................................... ......................... 4, 500,000

Statement showing analysis by object

Ob jec t 1962 estim ate 1963 estim ate

Inc rea se (+ ) 

or

decrease (—)

* 11 Pe rsonne l com pensa tion:

Fee s of U.S . co mm iss ion ers ..................... .. ..................... $750,000

10,000

2,350,000

30,000

1,290,000

70,000

$750,000 

10,000 

2,350,000 

30,000 

1,290,000 

70,000

Fee s of jur y co mm iss ion ers ......................... .............. .........

Fees of jur or s............................................................... .........

12 Pe rso nnel be ne fits .__ ____ ______ - ________________

21 Tra ve l a nd t ra ns po rta tio n of per sons (ju rors)_____ _____

25 Other service s (me als an d lod ging furnish ed ju ro rs )..........

Tota l ob lig ati ons.................... ....................................... .........- 4, 500,000 4, 500,000
38

JUST IFICATION

Language changes

None.

Objectives

This appropriation is for fees, expenses, and costs of jurors; compensation' of 

ju ry commissioners; fees of U.S. commissioners, including related Government 

con trib utions to the civil service retirement fund and matching taxes und er the 

Fed eral Insurance Contributions Act, as amended, and the compensation of 

voting referees appointed pursu ant to the Civil Righ ts Act of 1960. For basic 

statutor y authorities, reference is made to section L of the Digest of Appropriations, “ The Jud iciary ,” on file with the Bureau of the Budget and the A ppropriations Committees of the Congress.

General justification

The amount of service and the compensation of jurors depends largely on Jthe 

num ber of jury trials requested by the parties to civil and criminal cases in the 

courts. The earnings of commissioneis are dire ctly related to the volume of cases 

presented by Federal law enforcem ent officials. The following table shows the 

tre nd in the cost of jurors a nd commissioners du ring the p ast 6 years, the amoun t 

app rop riated for 1962 and the estimate for 1963:

Fiscal year Jury costs Perce nta ge

change

Fees of com ­

missioners 

an d relat ed 

ben efits

Perce nta ge

change

1950 ____ _________________________________ $3, 729,814 $590,519

1957_________ ____________ _____ _______ ____ 3j 729’ 726 0 617,020 + 4.5

1958_______________________________________ 4,196,300 * +1 2. 5 783^700 2

 + 27 .0

1959_____________ _________________________ 4, 210,243 + .3 79lj 826 + 1.0

1960_______________________________________ 3j 894 J 59 —7.5 803,562 +1. 5

1961_______________________________________ 3j 768j 100 - 3 .2 830,000 + 3.3

1962 (es tim ate)_________ ____________________ 3; 720,000 - 1 .3 780,000 - 6 .0

1963 (es tim ate)___________ _____ ____________ 3, 720,000 - 0 780^000 0

1

 Increase due p rim arily to sta tu to ry increase i n fees of ju rors effective Se pt. 7, 1957.

2

 Increase due p rim arily to st at uto ry in crease in fees of comm issione rs e ffective Sept. 2, 1957.

Fees paid jurors for services rendered in fiscal year 1961 were $126,000 or 3.2 

percent less tha n in the previous year and $442,000 less than the total paid in 

1959, a cumulative reduction over the p ast 2 years of 10.5 percent. This savings 

is due primarily to the program conducted by the courts to develop and insta ll 

improved and more effective systems of calen dar control and juro r utilizatio n. 

A summary of the num ber of days petit juror panels were called and not used 

and the number jurors therein , during the fiscal year ending June 30, 1961, by 

district, is included as exhibit L. A comparison of the administration of the 

pe tit jury system in the d istrict courts during the last 3 ye ars is as follows:
39

Petit juro rs serving in the U.S. district courts during the fiscal years 1959, 1960 and

1961

Fiscal year

N um ber of juries ch ose n---------------------------------------------------- Av era ge pa ne l p rese nt on t he firs t da y of tri al---------------------- Day s pa ne ls present a nd no n ew t rial beg un : N um be r of day s______________________________________ N um be r of ju ro rs _____________________________________

Day s o f juro r service: T ota l.............................................................................................

Serving: 1st da y of tr ia l____________________________________ Su bs eq ue nt day s of tr ia l___________________________ Ch allen ge d__________________________________________ In re serv e___________________________________________

Pe rc en t serving or ch all enged______________________ ____ — Pe rc en t serving or cha llenge d ex clud ing 2d an d su bs eq ue nt da ys of tr ia l___________________________________________

1961 1959 1

5,629 5,719

32.8 30.2

972 826

36,037 27,198

336,083 322,769

5,466

30.7

778 

27,576 

318,175

69,302 70,826 67,349

121,356 129,241 129,143

31,692 32,632 32,261

113,733 90,070 89,422

66.2 72.1 71.9

47.0 53.5 52.7

i The figu res for 1959 and 1960 do not includ e Ala ska , Gu am , an d th e Virg in Island s.

T he c ou rts ar e co nt in ua lly im pro vi ng the pr oc ed ur es a nd te ch ni qu es of a dm in is­ te ri ng th e ju ry sy stem whi ch sh ou ld re su lt in fu rt h er ec on om ies in th e co ming ye ar s. How ev er, an y sa vin gs to be realized by re as on of su ch im pr ov em en ts will be more th an offse t by in cr ea se s in th e num ber of ju ry tr ia ls an d tr ia l da ys ex pe ct ed by reas on of th e appoin tm ent of ad ditio nal d is tr ic t ju dg es purs uant to th e act of M ay 19, 1961, Pub lic Law 87 -36. I t is ex pe ct ed th a t ad di tional fu nd s will be re qu ired in 1962 an d in 1963, ho wev er, an y addit io nal ob lig atio na l au th o ri ty th a t may be ne ce ss ar y will be in cl ud ed in su pple m en ta l re qu es ts to be de te rm in ed as ex pe rie nc e dem onst ra te s th e effect up on th is appro pri at io n of 

th e appoin tm ent of th e ne w j ud ge s. Fe es an d re la te d be ne fit s of U.S . co mmiss ione rs fo r se rv ices re nd er ed duri ng fisc al year 1961 are est im at ed a t $830,00 0 an incr ea se ov er 1960 of ap pr ox im at el y $2 6,0 00 or 3.3 p er ce nt . The p aym ents fo r fi scal y ea r 1960 in cl ude d a pp ro xi m at el y $46,0 00 fo r service s of U.S . co mmission ers for th e T err it o ry of Alas ka . If th es e fee s are e xc lude d so as t o plac e th e p ay m ents on a co m par ab le ba sis , th e inc rease, 1961 ov er 1960, wo uld be alm ost $72 ,00 0, or 9.5 per ce nt . No increa se in th e ap pro pri ati on h as b een re ques te d f or fiscal yea r 1963, ho wev er, if th e c urr en t tr end co nt in ue s, a su pp le m en ta l or de fic ien cy ap pro pri ati on will be re qu ired .

SUFFICIENCY OF 1962 FUNDS

Mr. R ooney. What have been the obligations for the first 6 months 

of the current fiscal year as compared with fiscal ye ar 1961?

Mr. Anderson. For fees of jurors through December 31, 1961, we have paid to jurors $1,490,500 and that compares with the last 6 

months of last calendar year—this is last year’s figure—$1,502,532, 

or a decrease over last year of 0.8 percent. It is less than 1 percent.

Mr. Rooney. This requested figure of $4.5 million is an educated 

guess, is it?

Mr. Anderson. Yes, sir.

Mr. Rooney. If the money is not used for the purpose of payment of fees to jurors and commissioners, it lapses back into the Treasury, 

does it?

Mr. Anderson. Yes, sir.

Mr. Rooney. Are there any questions?

Mr. Magnuson. If you used more than $1,490,000 for jurors’ fees in the first 6 months, do you expect to remain within the appropriation 

of $2,350,000?
40

Mr. Anderson. No, sir; we do not.

W e are hoping that we can go as late as possible in the current 

fiscal year before we need to make a request because it appears quite 

obvious that the impact of additional judge power should affect this 

appropriation. That is, the jury trials; so that I expect we will have 

to come back for a supplemental to complete payments this year.

Mr. Magnuson. There is no pattern of a heavier cost in the first 

6 months than in the second half of the fiscal year?

Mr. Anderson. Not yet, Mr. Magnuson. The new judges have 

not been on long enough for us to feel the impact of their services yet.

Mr. Magnuson. That is all.

Mr. Bow. Mr. Chairman, I went over this too fast and did not get 

a chance to take a look a t it, and I think the Chairman would be interested in getting page 98 in the record.

Mr. Rooney. It is already in the record.

Mr. Bow. It is rather amazing to see that we have another alltime 

peak in bankruptcies, as the gentleman from New York has pointed 

out for us, in the past years.

Mr. Rooney. That is the best of the previous 8 years.

Mr. Bow. An alltime peak of 146,643. This is in the record?

Mr. Rooney. Yes; it is. I would not think of leaving it out. 

Travel and Miscellaneous Expenses

Object classification

(In thousa nds of dollars]

Direct obligations:

21 Travel and transpo rtation of persons.

22 Tra nsp ortation of thin gs__________

23 Ren t, communications, and utilities.

24 Pr intin g and reproduction________

25 Other services___________________

Tra nsc ripts ordered by co ur ts... .

26 Supplies a nd materials........................

31 EquiDment:

General office________________

Fu rnitu re........ .............................

Lawbooks, accessions_________

Lawbooks, continuations______

Total direct obligations______

Reim bursable obligations:

24 Pri nti ng and reproduction________

Total obligations_______________

1061 actual 1962 estim ate 1963 estimate

1,414 1,590 1,990 39 36 36 587 675 708 209 239 249 109 122 122 85 100 110 259 265 275

155 321 172

103 410

95 735 437

451 465 600

3.506 4,958 4,700

7 7 7

3,513 4,965 4,707

Program and financing

[In t housa nds of dollars]

1961 actual 1962 estim ate 1963 estimate

Program by activities: Travel and miscellaneous expenses: 

Direct obligations................. ................ ......... ........ . ........... 3,506

7

4,958

7

4,700

7 Reim bursable obligations___ _________________ _____

Total obligations___ _______ _____ _____________ _ 3,513

326

- 7

4

4,965

370

- 7

4,707 Financing:

Com parative transfers to other acc ounts_______________

Advances and reim bursements from oth er ac co un ts.........

Unobligated balance l apsi ng.. .. ........................................... - 7

New obligational a uth ority (appropr iation)..................... 3,835 5,328 4,700
Mr. Rooney. The next item is entitled “Travel and Miscellaneous 

Expenses,” and is to be found at page 380 of tlie committee print. 

The details in regard thereto are at pages 123 through 149 of the 

justifications, which pages we shall insert at this point in the record.

(The pages referred to follow:)

Statement relating appropriation estimate to current appropriation

1962 appro pria tion in an nua l a ct.......... 1962 appropri ation in s upp lem ental act

Base for 1963_________

Ne t difference, 1963 over 1962:

.............................................. $4,407,500

ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ.................................................... 920,000

............................................................................................. 5,32 7,50 0

Tra vel expenses______

Miscellane ous expenses. 

To tal_____________

Requirem ents

1962 app ropria ted

1963

estimate

Difference, 

increase 

(+ ) or decrease (—)

$1,590,000 

3,737,500

$1,99 0,000 

« 2 ,710 ,000

+$400,000

-1,0 27 ,5 00

5,327 ,500 4,70 0,00 0 -62 7,5 00

Total estim ate for 1963. 4,700 ,000

> Excludes $370,000 for activities tra nsf ere d in th e est ima tes t o the Gen eral Services Adm inistrati on und er the app ropr iation "Oper ating expenses, Pu blic Buildings Service .”

Statement showing analysis by object

Object

21

B

23

24

25

26 

31

Tra vel and transp ortation of persons_________________ Tra nsp orta tion of th ing s___________________________ Rent, communications, and u til ities _________________ Pri nti ng an d rep rodu ctio n_________________________ Oth er se rvices____________________________________ Tra nsc ript s ordered b y co ur t____________________ Supplies and mate rials _____________________________

Equ ipme nt: General office_________________________________ Fu rnitu re__ _________________________________ Lawbooks, accessions__________________________ Lawbooks, con tinu atio ns_______________________

Tot al (dir ect) obligat ions _____________________ Com para tive transfe r of obl igations for furni tur e a nd fu r­ nishin gs to GSA-------------------------------------------------

Ne t t ota l (dir ect ) obligations----------------------------

1962 estima te 1963 estimate

Increase (+> 

or

decrease ( —>

$1,590,000

36,000

675,000

239,000

121,500

100,000

265.000

$1,990,000

36,500

708,000

249,000

122,500

110,000

275,000

+$4 00,0 00

+5 00

+33 ,000

+1 0,00 0

+1 ,000

+1 0,00 0

+1 0,00 0

321,00 0

780,000

735,000

465,000

172,000 -149 ,000

-780 ,000

437,000

690,000

-2 98 ,000

+13 5,00 0

5,327,500

-3 70 ,0 00

4,700,000 -6 27 ,500

+370,00 0

4,95 7 500 4,700 ,000 -2 57 .50 0
Summar y of increased requirements for 1968

Na tur e of expense (or saving s):

1. Deduction of nonrecu rring expenses authorized for 1962 Amoun t (exclusive of expenses relating to new judgeships)______ —$510, 000

2. Transfer to the General Services Adm inistration of the sum

available in the base appropriation for replacement furniture and other incidental expenses___________________ —370, 000

3. Requirements relating to new judges and staffs__________ — 140, 000

4. To cover an increased subsistence (per diem) allowance and

parking fees authorized for judges and suppo rting personnel pursuan t to the Travel Expense Act, as a mende d___ 300, 000

5. To supply law libraries for judges appo inted to vacancies

vice senior judges; for expansion of libraries at outly ing 

places of holding court ; and to provide libraries at new 

places of holding c ou rt_____________________________ 50, 000

6. To cover contractual rate increases for lawbooks under contra ct and for con tinu atio n material required for expanded

libraries ---------------------------------------------------------------- 42, 500

Net decrease, 1963 over 1962______________________ —627, 500

JUST IFICA TION Language changes

It is requested that the limitation contained in the text of th e appropriation on 

expenses of atten dance at meetings concerned with work of Federal probation be 

increased from $14,000 to $17,500 to permit the paymen t of a higher subsistence 

(per diem) allowance to probation officers authorized to attend such meetings, 

witho ut curtailm ent of the curre nt program. Pur sua nt to the provisions of section 6 of Public Law 87-139, approved August 14, 1961, and at the direction of th e 

Jud icia l Conference of the United State s, officers and employees of the cou rts 

were authorized to claim, while in an official trave l status, on a nd after S eptember 

25, 1961, per diem in lieu of subsistence at the rate of $16. Prior to September 

25, 1961, the per diem allowance had been fixed at $12.

Curren tly, two regional inservice training institu tes are being held annually, 

with approximately one-third of the prob ation officers par ticipating each year. 

T hus, each of the probation officers has an opp ortunity of attendin g these tra ining courses once every 3 years. The institu tes have been highly successful and 

the benefits derived from such meetings have unquestionably resulted in the 

imp roveme nt of the probation system.

Objectives

This a ppro priation provides for the necessary trav el and miscellaneous expenses 

of th e judges and supporting personnel of the U.S. courts of appeals a nd the U.S. 

dis trict courts, including the probation offices, bu t excluding the offices of the 

referees in bankruptcy . The travel and miscellaneous expenses of referees, including compensation and benefits of clerks to referees, are p aid from a special fund 

app ropriat ion. For basic s tatutory a uthorities, reference is made to section M of 

the Digest of Appropriations, the Ju diciary, on file with the Bureau of the Budget 

and the Appropriations Com mittees of the Congress.

General justification

During fiscal year 1961 the c ourts of appeals received a record 4,204 new appeals, 

an increase of almost 8 percent over the previous year. Civil cases filed in the 

U.S. district courts, excluding local cases in Alaska, increased from 57,791 to 

58,293. There also was a slight increase in the number of criminal cases commenced in the district courts. During 1961, 104,352 petitions for natu ralization 

were filed in the district courts, as compared with 97,972 in 1960, an increase of 

6.5 perc ent. The number of aliens natu ralized also increased from 92,314 to 

101,002, or 9.4 percent. Fu rth er contributing to the workload of the district 

courts (clerks’ offices) has been the marked increase in the volume of filings in 

bankrup tcy from 110,034 to a new alltim e high of 146,643, an increase of over 33 

perc ent. A detailed acco unt of the judicial business of both the circuit and distri ct courts is contained in the general ju stific ation s of the appropriation estimate 

for “Salaries of supporting personnel, the Jud icia ry.”
43

Detailed justification

It is estim ated th at an appropriation of $4,700,000 will be required in 1963, which is $627,500 less than the amoun t available for fiscal year 1962. The estimate for 1963 provides for the full-year cost of the new judgeships authorized 

by the act of May 19, 1961, Public Law 87?

36, offset to the extent of nonrecurring expenses authorized for 1962. The estimate also includes additional funds for travel required to cover an increased subsistence (per diem) allowance and, “parking fees” authorized pursuant to the provisions of the Trav el Expense Act, as amended. The nonrecurring cost of furniture and furnishings required in 1962 incident to the occupacy of new buildings, namely $400,000, has been deducted in establishing the bud getary requirements for 1963. It is also proposed th at the sum of $370,000, which heretofore has been available for the recurring furniture requ irem ents of the courts, be transferred to the General Services Administration. 

Deduction for nonrecurring expenses authorized for fiscal year 1962

The following expenses which were authorize d for fiscal year 1962 are nonre­ curring and, accordingly, have been deducted in establishing the bud geta ry requirements for fiscal year 1963:

Expenses relating to new personnel:

Equip me nt________________________________________________ $20, 000

Furniture_________________________________________________ 10, 000

Sub total________________________________________________ 30, 000

Cost of modernizing equ ipm ent and facilities in the U.S. Distric t Court

for the Northern District of Illinois-------------------- _ ------ — — 77.000

Furniture and furnishings inciden t to th e occupancy of new buildings . _ 400, 000 

Premium on 2-year bla nket surety bond___________________________ 3, 000

Total deducted___________________________________________510, 000

Credit for nonrecurring expenses relating to new judgeships is included below' under the hearing “Requirements of new judges and staffs.”

Transfer to the General Services Administration of the sum available in the base appropriation for furniture and furnishings

Consistent with a directive from the Bureau of the Budget, the General Services Administration in 1963 will resume budgeting for furniture and furnishings re­ quired by the courts of appeals and district courts, with the exception of Referees in Bankruptcy. Accordingly, there is included a proposed transfer in the esti­ mates for 1963 of the sum currently available in the base appropriation for the normal recurring furniture requirements of the courts, namely $379,000. The General Services Adm inistration is expected to include a like amoun t as a “tran sfer in” under the appropriation “O perating expenses, Public Buildings Service.” The amount being transferred represents only the normal recurring furniture requirements of the courts, including the replacement and reha bilitation of furniture and related incidental expenses. The sum of $400,000 provided in 1962 for furniture and furnishings required incident to the occupancy of new buildings has been deducte d as a nonrecurring expense. The General Services Adm inistration is expected to include in its budget an estimate for furnitu re and furnishings required for new’ buildings scheduled for completion in 1963. The General Services Adm inistration also has assumed the bud getary responsibility for furn iture and furnishings required by new' judges appointed pursuant to the 

act of May 19, 1961.

Requirements relating to new judges and staffs

The Congress, by the act of May 19, 1961, Public Law 87-36, authorized the appointment of 73 additional judges, 10 for the U.S. courts of appeals and 63 for the U.S. district courts. The Congress, in a supp lemental appropriation act for fiscal year 1962, provided the sum of $920,000 to cover the cost of general office equipment, libraries, trav el, communications, and oth er miscellaneous expenses
44

of approximately 50 new judges and supporting personnel for an average of 9 

months. The budgetary requirem ents for 1963 will be $780,000, or $140,000 less 

than the obligational autho rity g ran ted for 1962 as follows:

Appropriated 1

1963

estimate

Increase

or

decrease

Travel____________________________________________

Tra nsp ortation of things_____________________________

Rent and com munications (including postage)__________

Printing an d reproduction (including printing of opinions).

Other services____ ____ ____________________________

Tra nsc ripts ordered by c ou rt ............... . .........................

Supplies and materials.............................................................

General office equ ipment (nonrecurring)_______________

Lawbooks, accessions (nonrecurring)___________________

Lawbooks, con tinuations____________ _________ _____

To tal.

$100,000

3,000

38,000

20,000

10,000 

20,000 

97,000 

632,000

$200 ,000

3,500

71,0 00

30,0 00

4,000

20,0 00

30,0 00

45,0 00

284,000

92,5 00

+$ 100,0 00 

+5 00 

+3 3, 00 0 

+1 0, 00 0 

+4,0 00 

+10 ,0 00 

+10 ,0 00 

-5 2,0 00 

-3 48 ,0 00 

+92 ,5 00

920,000 780,000 -1 40,0 00

1

 Supplemental Appropriation Act, 1962.

Travel (judges and staffs').—The travel requirements of the new judges and 

their supporting staffs, exclusive of the sum required as a result of an increased 

per diem allowance and “parking fees,” will approxim ate $209,000 per year, or 

on the average $2,800 per judg eship. During fiscal year 1961 expenses of travel 

incurred by judges and sup porting staffs were somewhat higher tha n the provision requested for the new judges, the average having been in excess of $3,000. 

Allowance has been made, however, for a slight reduction in the present average 

cost per judgeship in the belief th at the increase in the num ber of judges 

throug hou t the country will result in some savings in trav el requirements.

Transportation of things.— It is estima ted that $3,500, or approxim ately $50 

per judgeship, will be required in fiscal year 1963 to cover (1) the cost of shipping 

supplies and equipment to the new judges; (2) the expense of shipping records 

and para phernalia from hea dquar ters to outlying places of holding court for use 

during terms of court at such places; and (3) the cost of shipping exhibits in cases 

which are appealed to higher courts.

Rent and communications (including postage).— It is estim ated th at $70,000, or 

approximately $1,000 per judgeship will be required annually to cover the cost 

of telep hone facilities and services (including toll calls); tele type and telegraph 

services; postage and fees for regu lar mail, airmail, registered mail, parcel post, 

etc .; and the rental of post office boxes. An additional $1,000 has been included 

to cover the nonrecurring expense of installing telephone equipment.

Printing and reproduction.— The recurring annua l cost of printing and reproduction of material occasioned by the activ ities of the new judges is estimated at 

$30,000, of which $15,000 will be required for the printing of the opinions of the 

newr circ uit judges and the remainin g $15,000 to cover the cost of providing all 

of the new judges with stationer y, envelopes, etc. The cost of printing the 

opinions of circuit judges is curren tly averaging $1,500 a yea r per judge, which 

is the basis on which the annual recurring budgeta ry requirements were established. 

The cost of providing s tatione ry, envelopes, etc., was derived by the application 

of a un it cost of $180 per circuit judgeship and $220 per district judgeship.

Other services.—It is estimated th at the sum of $4,000 will be required to cover 

the cost of maintenance and repairs to equipment as well as any other miscellaneous 

contractua l services.

Transcripts ordered by court.—It is expected th at on the average, approximately 

$300 per judgeship, or $20,000 per annum, will be required to cover the cost of 

furnishing tran scripts of proceedings to persons suing, defending, or appealing 

in forma pauperis in accordance with section 753 of title 28 of the United States 

Code. The estimate is based on the present cost of such transcripts.

Supplies.— The sum of $30,000 has been included to provide the usual supplies 

of office materials, such as paper, carbon paper, ink, pencils, filing materials, 

and the like, for the new judges and their supporting personnel. The estim ate 

-was d erived by the application of a unit cost of $350 per circuit judgeship and 

$450 per d istrict judgeship. The estimate for a d istrict judge is somewhat higher 

to cover the cost of supplies th at w’ould normally be consumed by his courtroom 

deputy.

Equipment, general office.— It is estim ated th at $45,000 will be required in 1963 

to cover the nonrecurring expense of providing approxim ately 23 new judges with
ge ne ra l office equ ip m en t su ch as ty pew ri te rs , dic ta ti ng mac hine s, phot oc op y 

mac hine s, co py ho lders, br ief ca ses, pe n se ts, et c. T he su m of $97,0 00 pio vid ed fo r th is pu rpos e in th e 1902 su pp le m en ta l appro pri at io n ha s be en de du ct ed , re su lti ng in a ne t cr ed it o f $5 2,0 00 . The e st im ate wa s de rive d by th e app lica tion of u n it costs of $1,600 pe r cir cuit ju dg es hi p and $2,000 per d is tr ic t ju dge sh ip as 

follow s:

Circuit

judgeships

Dis tric t

judgeships

$400 $400

400

200 200

1,000 1,000

1,600 2,000

Electric typ ewrite r (secretary )---------------------------------------------------------------- Electric typ ewrite r (courtroom de pu ty)---------------------------------------------------- Ma nual typewrite r (law clerk)______________________________ ___________ Dic tating equipment, photocopy machines, copyholders, pen sets, brief cases, 

etc------ ----------------------— ........... ........ ........- ..............................- ----------------

To tal .......................................... -.........................................................................

I t is ex pe cted th a t about on e- ha lf of th e ju dg es will re ques t th a t th ey be pro ­ vi de d dic ta ting eq ui pm en t. T he co st of su ch eq uip m en t va ries ; ho we ve r, ba sed on ou r ex pe rie nc e it is est im ate d th a t th e co st wo uld av er ag e ap pro xim at el y $800 for tw o un its , one for d ic ta ti n g an d th e oth er fo r tr an sc ri bin g. A nu m ber of ju dg es will re qu es t th a t th ey be fu rn ishe d ph ot oco py mac hi ne s wh ich ra ng e in co st from $200 to $500 ea ch . In som e cases a ju dg e will re qu ire an add itio nal ty pew ri te r for a fr eq uen tly vis ited ou tlyi ng plac e of ho ldin g co ur t or ad di ng m ac hi ne s an d ot he r equip m en t. Th e re qu irem en ts of in di vid ual ju dg es va ry , an d th e co st of pr ov id in g equip m en t for some ju dg es will ne ce ssarily be hi gh er 

th an th e co st of equi pm en t fu rn ishe d ot he r judg es .

Lawbook s, acce ssions.— T he su m of $28 4,000 is in clud ed to co ve r th e co st of es ta bl ishi ng libr ai ies for ap pr ox im at el y 23 new ju dg es . T he su m of $632,00 0 pr ovi de d for th is pu rp os e in th e 1962 Sup pl em en ta l A pp ro priat io n Act has be en de du ct ed , resu lti ng in a net cre dit of $34 8,000. A basic st an d aid libr ar y, co n­ si stin g of S ta te an d Fed er al st atu te s, re po rts, dige sts, an d ci ta to rs , a leg al en cy clop ed ic wo rk, and a m in im um of tr ea tise s an d te xts , is ex pe cted to co st appr ox im at el y $12,000. In addit io n to th e basic sta n d ard libr ar y, ea ch of th e ci rc uit ju dg es will re qu ire th e st atu te s, re po rts, an d oth er leg al referen ce m at er ia l fo r all ad di tion al S ta te s in cl ud ed in th e circ ui t. Su ch addit io nal m at er ia l is ex pe ct ed to co st appro xim at el y $4,000, brin ging th e to ta l co st of a libr ar y fo r a cir cu it ju dg e to $16,0 00. D et ai ls as to th e law bo ok s an d oth er m at er ia l includ ed in a ju dg es libra ry an d th e co st, fir st yea r and su cc ee ding ye ars, ar e co nt ai ne d 

in ex hi bi t M.

Law boo ks, co ntinua tio ns.— B as ed on curr ent pri ces, th e su m of $92,500 will be 

re quir ed in 1963 and in su cc ee di ng ye ar s fo r continuat io n m at er ia l for th e lib ra ries 

of th e new judg es. D et ai ls are co nt ai ne d in ex hi bi t M.

Inc reased subsistence {per diem ) allowan ce an d pa rk in g fee s

T he tr avel ex penses of ju dges an d oth er officers and em ploy ee s of th e U.S . court s of ap pe als and dis tr ic t co ur ts , ex ce pt referee s in bankru ptc y, in ci den t to att en d in g co urt or tr an sa cti n g oth er official bu sine ss in pur su an ce of law , ar e pai d from th is ap pro pri ati on. W he n a ju dge ho lds co ur t aw ay fro m his official st ati on, he no rm ally re quir es th e service s of his law cler k, se cr et ar y, re port er , and oth er co ur t pe rson ne l. Pro bat io n officers m us t tr av el ex tens ively in su per ­ vising pe rson s un de r th eir ch ar ge an d in co nd uct in g pre se nt en ce i nv es tiga tion s. Purs uant to th e pr ov isions of s ec tio n 6 of Pu blic Law 87 -130 , ap pr ov ed Aug us t 14, 1961, a t th e dire ctio n of th e Ju di ci al Co nferen ce of th e U ni ted Sta te s, th e su pp ort in g pe rson ne l of th e Fed er al co ur ts we re au th or iz ed to cla im pe r diem in lie u of su bs istenc e a t th e ra te of $16 an d par kin g fees while in an official tr avel sta tu s o n an d af te r Sep te m be r 25, 1961. A p er d iem allowan ce of $8 wa s fixed fo r tr avel no t invo lving over ni gh t ab sence. The r ate s in eff ect prior to S ep te m be r 25, 1961, were $12 an d $6, re sp ec tive ly , an d no par ki ng fees we re all ow ab le. Ju st ic es and ju dg es of th e U ni te d S ta te s als o were au th or iz ed to claim pe r die m at $16 per da y in lieu of ac tu al ex pe ns es of su bs ist en ce . Alth ou gh th e act in cr as ed th e max im um ac tu al e xp ense allo wan ce from $25 to $ 30, ju dg es ha ve not be en a u th o r­ ize d by th e Ju di cial Con fe re nc e to cla im actu al ex pe nd itur es in exces s of $25 per da y. The mi lea ge all ow an ce fo r th e use of a pri vat el y ow ne d au to m ob ile als o wa s he ld by th e Ju di ci al Con ferenc e a t 10 ce nts, notw ithst an din g th e fa ct th a t Pub lic La w 87 -139 au th or iz ed a max im um mi lea ge allowan ce of 12 ce nts.
It is estimated th at an additional $300,000 will be required in fiscal year 1963 

to cover the increase in the subsistence (per diem) allowance and parking fees. 

A supp lemental appropriation for fiscal year 1962 is proposed for later transmission.

A sam pling of vouchers paid just prior to the increase in the subsistence (per 

diem) allowance showed the following distribu tion of payments for travel:

Pe rc en t

Expenses of tra vel by common car rier______________________________ 10. 7

Tra vel by privately owned automobile (mileage)_____________________ 37. 4

Other, cab fares, tolls, etc_________________________________________ 1. 6

Subsistence:

Actual expense basis 1________________________________________ 13. 2

Per diem in lieu of___________________________________________ 37. 1

Tot al ._______ ___________ _____ __________________________ 100. 0

1

 Judge s electing to claim actu al expenses of not to exceed $25 per day.

As is evident from the above table approxim ately one-half of the tota l expenditures for trav el represents the cost of transpo rtation and the balance subsistence. 

The sum of $1,590,000 is curren tly available for travel. Included elsewhere 

in the estima tes is a request for $100,000 representing the balance of funds required 

for new judges and staffs. Accordingly, if there had been no change in the per 

diem allowance, the sum of $1,690,000 would be sufficient in 1963. Payments for 

subsistence in 1963 based on a $12 per diem allowance would approximate $850,000 

or 50 perce nt of the tota l estim ated expenditures for trave l. Of the tota l estimated 

subsistence expenses, $220,000 would represent claims on an actual expense basis 

and the balance of $630,000 per diem allowances. As a result of the increase in th e 

per diem allowance from $12 to $16, i t is expected tha t paymen ts for subsistence 

in fiscal year 1963 will aggregate $1,090,000, an increase of $240,000. The es timate 

was derived by application of the percentage increase in the per diem allowance, 

33% percent, to the total ant icipated per diem claims plus $30,000 to cover an 

anticipated increase in subsistenc e paymen ts to judges as a result of a greater 

num ber of judges claiming per diem in lieu of actual expenses of subsistence. The 

sampling of vouchers referred to above showed th at less tha n one-third of the 

judges were claiming a per diem allowance of $12. A survey conducted subsequent 

to the increase in the per diem allowance showed tha t more th an two-thirds of the 

judges had elected to claim per diem in lieu of actua l expenses of subsistence.

The sum of $60,000 is included to cover “Parking fees.” Approximately 37.4 

percent of the tota l estimated expenditures for trave l, or $632,000, represents 

reimbursements at the rate of 10 cents per mile for travel by privately owned 

autom obile. The 10-cent mileage allowance was n ot increased. However, court 

personnel were authorized to claim parking fees p ursuan t to the Trav el Expense 

Act, as amended. It is estima ted th at parking fees will a verage approximately 

1 cent per mile, or $60,000. The bulk of travel by priv ately owned automobile 

is performed by probation officers incident to their supervisory responsibilities 

and in the conduct of presentence investigations. Probatio n officers are expected 

to claim reimbursement for tra vel by privately owned automobile for a total of 

3,750,000 miles during 1963. On the basis of the estimate of 1 cent per mile, 

probation officers are expected to claim reimbursement for parking fees aggregating $37,500. It is estimated th at parking fees to be claimed by other court personnel will aggregate $22,500.

Lawbooks, accessions.—It is estimated th at an additional $50,000 will be required during fiscal year 1963 to provide law libraries for judges appo inted to 

vacancies vice senior judges; for the expansion of existing libraries at outlying

g

laces of holding court; and to provide libraries at new places of holding court.

Exclusive of the sum available for the nonrecurring expense of establishing 

libraries for appointees to the judgeships created by the act of May 19, 1961, the 

sum of $103,000 is available in the base appropriation for lawbooks, accessions.

During fiscal year 1961 approximately $95,000 was expended for the establishmen t of new libraries and the expansion of existing libraries. Libraries were 

established for four judges appointed to fill vacancies vice senior judges who 

continued to perform sub stantial judicial services and chose to retain their 

libraries. It should be noted, however, that during 1961 the number of judgeship vacancies increased from 13 at the beginning of the year to 22 at the end of 

the year. More than one-half of these vacancies were vice retired judges who 

reta ined or are expected to reta in their libraries. Had these vacancies been 

filled, th e requirements would have been well in excess of the actual expenditures.
The re qu ir em en ts hav e va ried fro m yea r to yea r de pe nd in g up on th e num ber of 

ju dg es ap poin te d to fill va ca nc ies vic e se ni or ju dg es . Ex pe rie nc e in dic at es th a t th e no rm al re cu rr in g co st of lawbo ok ac qu is itio ns will av erag e ap pro xim at el y 

$15 3,00 0 an nu al ly . Lawbooks, co ntin ua tio ns .— I t is es ti m ate d th a t an ad ditio nal $42,5 00 will be 

requ ired in 1963 to co ve r increa ses in th e co st of lawbo ok s un de r co n tr act and ad di tiona l conti nuati on m at er ia ls re qu ired fo r ex pan ded lib ra ries as follo ws :

Th e up ke ep of se ts ne wly ac qu ired in fiscal y ear 19 61 --------------------------$17, 500 Price increa ses on co ntinuati on m at er ia l unde r c o n tr a c t----------------------- 25, 000

D ur in g fisc al y ear 1961, new libr ar ie s we re pr ovid ed an d ex isting libra ries were ex pa nd ed by th e ac qu isitio n of leg al re fe renc e m at er ia ls a t a co st of a ppro x­ im atel y $95 ,00 0. In ord er to ke ep th es e se ts of bo ok s cu rr en t, it is est im ate d th a t $17 ,50 0 will be re qu ired for th e pu rc ha se of co ntinuati on m at er ia l. Th e su m of $2 5,0 00 is re qu ired to co ve r pr ice increa se s for conti nuati on m a­ te ri al ne ce ss ary to ke ep co urt libr ar ie s up to date . Th e price in cr ea se s we re eff ectiv e J u l y 'l , 1961, un de r G en er al Se rvices A dm in is trat io n co n tr acts and co ntr ac ts en te re d in to by th e A dm in is trat iv e Office of th e U.S. C ou rts. The co st of lega l referenc e m at er ia l pur ch as ed by th e ju dic ia ry , in cl ud in g “Corpu s Ju ri s Sec undum ,” “ Fe de ra l R eport er ” (se cond serie s), and M oore ’s “ Fe de ra l Pra cti ce” (se cond ed itio n) , increa se d by ap pro xi m at el y 4.5 per cent, or $20 ,000 on th e ba sis of an an nu al ex pen di tu re of ap pro xi m at el y $4 50 ,000 . In ad di tion to th e su m re qu ired as a re su lt of price increases, $5,000 is re quir ed to co ve r an in cr ea se d vo lume of co ntinuat io n m at er ia l wh ich ob vi ou sly is due to 

th e ex pa nd ed bo dy of law .

Mr. Rooney. The request is in the amount of $4.7 million, which would be a decrease of $627,500 below the appropriation for the current fiscal year. This is due, however, is it not, to nonrecurring expenses for 1962 and transfer to GSA of replacement furniture costs, 

and so forth?

Mr. Anderson. That is correct.

Mr. R oon ey. En tirely ?

Mr. Anderson. Yes, sir.

Mr. Rooney. It might be well to look at page 125, which page 

could be used to work from.

T R A V E L E X P E N S E S

What are the requested increases above the amounts allowed for the various activities under “Travel and miscellaneous expenses” in 

the current fiscal year?

Mr. Anderson. Other than the judgeship legislation, Mr. 

Chairman?

Mr. Rooney. Yes.

Mr. Anderson. $300,000 for the Travel Expense Act and $50,000 

with which we would buy-----

Mr. Rooney. Just a minute. Is this $300,000 entirely due to the 

additional judges or-----

Mr. Anderson. It has nothing to do with additional judges.

Mr. Rooney. How does this jibe with the statem ent of Chief Judge McGuire of a while ago tha t the Judicial Conference decided to stay with the amou nt allowed for mileage and the amount of per diem 

allowed?

Mr. Anderson. He said tha t we did not increase mileage, tha t we did not increase the judges’ ceiling on subsistence on an actual expense basis. We did increase the per diem allowance from $12 to $16 and tha t is what this $300,000 is for in large measure.

83 455—162-
48

Mr. R oon ey. Does the $16 per diem apply to the judges?

Mr. Ande rson. Yes, sir ; it can. Judges have a choice by stat ut e 

of electing to claim actual expe nses of subsis tence no t to exceed $25 a 

da y or in lieu thereof, $16 per diem.

Mr. R ooney. Are the re som e of them who tak e the per diem?

Mr. Anders on. Yes, sir.

M r. R ooney. How ma ny, would you say?

Mr. A nderson. I could no t give you a numb er bu t ma ny, ma ny 

jud ges , when their actua l expense s of subsistence run aro und $16, do 

so ra th er th an bothe r to keep records on the item s of expense which 

they wou ld have to do on th e othe r basis, an d just claim a flat $16. 

It take s less bookkeeping.

Mr. R ooney. What is the next of the item s?

addit ion al lawbooks

Mr. Ande rson. The $50,000 item , we w ould use for the purpose of 

additio na l lawbooks for the jud ges who would tak e up th e qu arters of 

retir ed jud ges who were conti nu ing to perf orm judicia l service and 

would retain at least a pa rt of their libraries th at they held while the y 

were activ e judges. This is more or less of a conti nuing thin g. A 

jud ge retir ed ret ain s all or part of his lib rar y and his successor the n 

has to be furnished with law books and th at is w hat we would use this 

for.

Mr. R ooney. In 1961, $95,000 was exp ended for the est ablishm ent 

of new librarie s and the e xpa nsion of e xisting facilities. Wh en are we 

going to get to the point whe re all of these new librarie s will be establish ed an d we will be pu rch asing only sup ple me nts to the lawbooks?

Mr. Anderson. I would sa y th at when we hi t the peak of retired 

judges. I do no t know whe n th at will be, but lets say this: The 

nu mber of retired judges has bee n cree ping u p over the years, as I am 

sure the Chairm an is aware, an d during calend ar ye ar 1961, let me 

give y ou j us t three figures. At the end of M arch we ha d 75 a nd I am 

disreg ard ing the resigned jud ges .

In Ju ne , 81; Sep tem ber, 86; Dec ember, 87, and over and above this 

toda y the re are 62 judges who are eligible to r eti re and could tom orro w 

if they so desired.

As long as the numb er of retired judges con tinu es to increase we 

have to provide alm ost two librar ies where we had one before. It is 

no t a full two, of course, but th at is the reason we are asking for the 

$50,000.

Mr. R ooney. You say on pag e 148 of the justifi cation s th at more 

than one-half of these vacancies were vice retire d judges who retained, 

who are expected to retain , th eir libraries.

W ha t do you mean by th at ?

Mr. Olney. Ma y I give you an exam ple?

Mr. R oon ey. Yes.

Mr. Olney. Jud ge Bar rett Pr etty m an conte mp lates retir ing very 

shortly . He was showing me las t week wha t he was exp ecting to do. 

He will chan ge his ch ambers in the cou rthouse in the D istric t to rooms 

smaller than the ones he has now. He has less book space bu t he does 

inten d to keep active as a judge, so he plans to move into different 

cham bers and to take with him the code, the United St ates Reports 

and basic books of that kind th at he will need to con tinue his work.
49

The rest of his library he will leave for whoever is appointed to fill his vacancy, hut we will have to supply those basic books that he keeps 

for the new judge coining in.

Mr. R ooney. These books always remain the property of the Government, do they not?

Mr. Olney. Yes, they do.

Mr. Rooney. Tt would appear from this that it might be personal 

property. I do not know but what the underlying-----

Mr. Olney. No.

Mr. Anderson. They are stamped “Piope rtv of the United States 

Government.”

Judge McGuire. I might say in supplement that we have two judges presently retired who moved out of their chambers into smaller quarters and they arc sharing a common courtroom. They also have 

the basic fundamentals of individual libraries. Mr. Bow. Mr. Chairman, will you yield?

Mr. Rooney. Yes.

SU P P O R T IN G PE R SO N N E L FO R R E T IR E D JU D G E S

Mr. Bow. Judge McGuire, do these retired judges have the use of 

law clerks?

Judge McGuire. If they sit a substantial part of the year, yes; if 

they do not, no. Mr. Bow. Would th ey use another judge’s law clerk?

Judge McGuire. Th at can be done. Mr. Bow. Wha t is the case with the two you referred to? 

judge McGuire. As far as we are concerned, one of the judges has no law clerk, Judge Letts. As far as Judge Schweinhaut is concerned, I do not not believe he has any law clerk now and has not had for a 

substantial time. Mr. Bow. The two you referred to have no law clerks?

Judge McGuire. Th at is right. Mr. Bow. What other supporting personnel would they have? 

judge McGuire. They would have a secretary and tha t is all.

Mr. Bow. Each one has a secretary?

Judge McGuire. As far as one is concerned, he has a secretary and as far as the other is concerned, she is merely serving on a tenta tive basis and used by other judges in case of illness.

Mr. Bow. How is this determined?

Judge McGuire. How is what determined? Mr. Bow. What supporting personnel they shall have? Is it the request of the judge or the chief judge who handles that?

Judge McGuire. In our courts, it would be determined by the 

necessities of the situation. Mr. Bow. Who makes tha t determination?

judge M cGuire. Th at comes from application to the chief judge 

and the chief judge makes a recommendation.

Mr. Bow. That is all.

Mr. Olney. Elsewhere, it is usually left up to the judge who retires. 

He lets us know what he thinks he is going to need.
50

Mr. Bow. Who reviews th at ?

Mr. Olney. We send out a le tter every ye ar to the chief jud ge of 

the cir cuit giving a list of the jud ges who are retired and the nam es of 

the supp ortin g personnel they have a nd wha t they are s upposed to he 

doing and ask them to give us wortl as to wh eth er the jud ge who is 

using the se people is doin g su bs tantial work.

L IS T OF R E T IR E D JU D G E S , S U P P O R T IN G P E R S O N N E L , ET C.

M r. Bow . Wou ld you su bm it for the record at this point a list of 

the retired ju dges, their person nel, days of trial, and the cases dispo sed 

of? Is th at a fair requ est, M r. Chairma n?

Mr. R ooney. Surely.

M r. Ande rson. Yes, sir.

M r. Bow . You might include th at docume nt un de r “ Personnel 

costs, salar y expenses.” 1 wan t a record th at will break down.

Mr. Ande rson. Yes, sir.

(The info rmatio n reques ted follows:)
Statement of senior judges on the rolls, the a mount of service rendered by each judge, and the number and compensation of suppor ting personnel, fisca l year 1961

C ircu it or dis tric t Na me of jud ge

Serv ice Co mp ensat ion of sup po rti ng p ers onnel

Re marks Circuitco urt 

cases 

heard 

1

Distri ct c ourts Ro ll Ju ne 30, 1961 To tal 

obliga­ tion s, 

1961 

fiscal 

y e a r

2

Tr ials Tr ial

da ys

Secre tary La w clerk Crier Me ssenge r To tal

Grade Salary Gr ade Salary Grade Salary Grade Salary

SENIOR CIRCUIT JUDGE

1st ci rc ui t......................... Mugrud er, C al ver t___

H an d, Le ar ne d______

58

24

GS-10GS-10

$7,821

7,675

$7,821 

14,123

$7,695 

12,318

Law cle rk position 

va ca nt on Ju ne 30, 

1961.

Ju dg e retir ed M ar. 31, 1961.

Ju dg e retir ed Sept. 30,

1960.

Secre tary, ree mp loy ed 

an nu itan t.

Ju dg e retir ed J an . 3,

1961.

Ju dg e retir ed Ap r. 1, 

1961.

Ju dg e retir ed J an . 25, 

1961.

Law clerk, tem porary. Secre tary, pa rt- tim e. Judg e retir ed M ar. 1, 

1961.

2d cir cuit .......... ........... . GS-9 $6,448

Do ........... . . .............. Chase, Iiar rie B _____

D o............. . .......... Hinck s, Carro ll C ___ 41

30

54

13

29

3 5 GS-9

GS-6

GS-10GS-10GS-1 0

7,1145,3467,8217,821

7,821

GS -9

GS-9GS-11GS-12GS-8

6,448

6,448

7,571 

9,485 6,053

13, 562 11, 794 

18,907 17,306 

13,874

12, 771 11,763 15,981 

17.200

3, 484

D o..-_ ............. ......... Swan, Th om as W ___

D o .- .......................... Med ina, Harold R .. _ . Maris, Albert B __ _ GS-2 $3, 515 3d cir cuit......................... 1 2

Do ........................... Fo rm an , P hil lip..........

4th ci rc ui t____________ Dobie, Ar mi ste ad M._ Do ______ ____ _ Soper, Morr is H ___ _ 118 GS-9 6,947 GS-9 6,448 13,395 12,472 5th ci rc ui t........... ............ Bo rah, Wayne C ____

Do _______________ Ho lmes, Ed w in R ___

6th c ircu it_____ . ___ Sim ons, Ch arles C .. .. Allen, Florence E ____ 41 GS-9 7,426 GS-7 5,366 GS-2 GS-2 4,139 4,347 16,931 4,347 

7,821

17,004

4,286

7,695

Do ....................

7th c ircu it..... ...... ......... Ma jor , J. E ar l....... ....... 27 GS-1 0 7,8218th ci rc uit........................ Th om as, Se th _______

D o .......................... Ga rdne r, Archib ald K .

Sa nborn , Jo hn B ..........

10

47

13

622

36

10

2

612738

GS-10GS-1 0

7,6753,827

7,675

3,827

6,448

6,4063,6653,174

D o................. ............

D o............. . .............. Wo odrou gh, Jo sep h

Bone, Ilom er T _____

GS-9 6,448

9th ci rc ui t........................

Do .............................. He aly , W illiam______Do..........- .............. M ath ew s, Clif to n____ GS-1 0 7,821 7,821 

7,010 

14,123

13,229

14,269

5,416

16, 432

7,6957,025

3,492

5,776

11,724

6,1315,528

Do .......................... Orr, William E ............ GS-1 0

GS-9

GS-9

GS-9

7,010

6,448

6,448

6,448

Do ............................ Pope, W alter L„_........ GS-1 0

GS-9

GS-1 0GS-9GS-9

7,6756,781

7,821

5,416

6,947

Do .............................. Stephens, Albert L ... .

Ph illips, Oric L ............ 10th ci rc ui t...................— 2

13

3

7 Do .............................. Hux man , W alter A ... 

Bra tton , Sam G ........... D o.............................. OS-12 9, 485

See foo tno tes a t en d of tab le, p. 53.
Stateme nt of senior judge s on the rolls, the a mount of service rendered by each judge, and the number and compensation of suppor ting personnel,

fisca l year 1961— Continued

Circuit or district

S E Jn O B DISTR ICT JU D G E

Arkansas (eastern)........ Arkansa s (eastern and western). California (northern) ... California ( southern)... Do............................

Delaware_________ _ Do............................District of C olum bia.. .

Do............................

Do ............................

Flo rida (no rthern )____ Flo rida (southern)........ Do ............................Georgia (n orther n)____

Illinois (nort hern) ____Illinois (eastern) ____ Illinois (south ern)......... Iowa (southern)............ Louisian a (w es tern ).... Maryland____ _____ Ma ssachu setts...............

Michigan (eastern).......

Do................ ........

Minneso ta__________Mississippi (no rthern ). Missouri (western)___Mon tana........................

Name of judge

Service Compensation of supporting personnel

Rem arks Circuitcourt 

cases 

heard 1

District courts Roll June 30,1961 Tota l obliga­ tions, 1961 

fiscal 

year ’

Trials Trial

days

Secretary Law clerk Crier Messenger Tota l

Grade Salary Grade Salary Grade Salary Grade Salary

Trim ble, Thomas C. .. . Ixstnley, Ha rry J ____

Roche, Michael J ____ 40 70 GS-9 $7,114 GS-11 $7,821 10,275 GS-4 $4,680 4,576 $19,615 19,198 $19,267 16,243 Weinberger, Ja co b. __ 27 61 GS-5 4,347 GS-12 GS-4 Secretary, tempora ry. Judg e died Dec. 2,1960. McCormick, Paul J ... Rodney, Richa rd 8 __ GS-9 7,114 6,448 GS-9 6,448 6,448 GS-4 4,680 18,242 12,896 19,300 6.692 Ix’ahy, Pau l C______ 7 30 GS-9 GS-9 Secretary, E.O .D. Jun e 1,1961. Bailey, Thom as Jennings.

Letts, F. Dick inso n__ GS-10 7,176

6,614 6,448

GS-12 8,965 GS-2 1,934 18,075

6,614 6,448

1,529

6,5874,995

(Judge retired May 31, 1 1961.

(Crier, reemployed ( annu ita nt. Schw einhaut, Hen ry.. 27 63 OS-9 DeVane, Dozier A.L .. Holland, John W........ 31 28 53 GS-9 39 76 Barker, William J ___ 2 2 GS-10 7,675 7,675 7,676 Vnderwood, E. M .__ Judge died Aug. 28, 1960.

LaB uy, Walter J ____ GS-9 7,114

7,051

GS-12 10,795 17,909

7,051

7,3737,066 Wham , F. L................ 26 57 GS-8 1961, Brisple, Charles G .__ Hieklin, Edw in R ...... Dawk ins, B. C., Sr __ Chesnut, W. C al vi n. . 2 61 107 GS-10. 7,821 7,821 GS-7.. 5,366 9,485 GS-4. 4,056 4,888 17,243 22,194 16,864 21,834 Mc Carthy. William T . Lederle, Arthu r F.„.__ 1 3 GS-10. GS-12. GS-4. Judge reti red Jul y 1, 1960.

Judge retired March 31, 1961. Judge reti red Ma y 1, 1961. Picard, Fra nk A____ 7 19 GS-10. 7,821 7,821

7,280

4,160

GS-9.. 6,448 GS-4. 4,264 18,533

12.293

4, 425

2,105

7,235 4,165

Bell, Robert C______ GS-10. GS-4. 4,472

Cox, A llen................... 4 4 GS-9.. 7,280

4, 160 Reeves, A. L_______ 34 85 GS-8.. Secretary, reemployed annuitant.

Pra y, Charles N ..........

4
I

Ne bra ska ........... ...........

Ne vada..........................New York (eas tern ).... Do............................

Do..................... .

New York (so uthern)..

Do............................

Do............................Do............................Do...........................

No rth Carolina (mid­ dle). Ohio (no rthern )______ Pen nsylvania (eastern). Do...........................

Pen nsylvania (middle).

Pen nsylvania (western). South Carolina 

(eastern). Tennessee (e as te rn )....

Texas (northern )...........Texas (southern)........... Virginia (eastern )......... Virginia (western)........ Do......... . ................

Washington (easter n).. Was hington (western)..

SENIOR JUDGE— OTHER

Co urt of Custom s an d 

Pa tent Appeals. Do............................

Co urt of Claim s............

Tot al ....................

Deiehant, John W .__ 22 59 GS-10. 7,342 7,675 7,342 7,675 7,304 7,528 Foley, Roger T _____ 16 9 32 GS-10. Galston, Clarence C ... Byers, Mortime r W ... 21 73 GS-9.. 7,426 08- 12. 4,618 GS-4. 4,888 16,932 16,946 Inch, Robert A...........

Bond y, William.......... Clancy, John W.......... 16 24 GS-10. 7,675 7,821 GS-8.. 5,886 GS-4. 4, 784 3,411

4, 472

18, 345 18,104 

9,698

12,738

Conger, Edward A__ 17 44 GS-11. GS-4. 11,232

12,813 Knox, John C.............. GS-11. 8,341 GS-4.

Leibell, Vincent L___ 3 10 Hayes, Johnson J ........ 12 33 GS-10. 7,675 7,675 7,688

Wilkin, Robert N ___ Welsh, George A......... GS-9 6,947

7,509

GS-12 9,485

9, 485

GS-4 4,680 21,112

21, 050

21.155

Kir kpatrick, William 

H.

Watson, Albert L.......

’ 133 3 19 GS-10 GS-12 GS-4 4,056 21,004

5,976

McVicar, N.................

Waring, J. Wa tres___

Darr, Leslie R ........... 3 3 GS-10 7,675 GS-4 3,598 11,273 3,413

Atwell. William

Hawley. Kennerly , Thomas M . Iiutches on, Sterlin g... Barksdale, Alfred D ... Paul, J ohn .

4 5 12 GS-8 1,472 6,843 7,675 1,472 6, 843 1,358 6,858 7,528

3 7 7 GS-7

4 6 GS-10 7,675 Webster, J. Stanley__ Bowen, John C__ . . . . GS-10 7,342

7,987

GS-8 5,886

6,448

GS-4 4,160 17.388 1,333

17,959 Jackson, Joseph R .__ 73 140 GS-10 GS-9 GS-2 3,723 18,158

Johnson, Noble J ____ Littleton, Benjamin H..

878 520 1,109 344,806 210,413 65,665 17, 658 638, 542 ‘503,231

Law clerk, part-time. Judge died Jan. 12, 1961.Secretary, also serving as law clerk; crier, reemployed a nnuitan t.

Secretary, also serving as law clerk.

Judge died Dec. 20, 1960. Secretary and law clerk positions abolished.

Judge died Dec. 20, 1960.

Judg e retire d Ma r. 15, 1961. Crier, reemployed annuitant.

Secretary, part time.

Judg e retired J une 5, 1961.

W

1 Rep rese nts the num ber of cases in which a judge sat and participated in the dis­ position of.

a Rep resents the tota l compensation paid from the date the judge retired through the close of business Jun e 30, 1961.

3 Service in the United States Court of Customs and Pa tent Appeals.

4 Exclusive of approximately $37,000 paid for benefits— Gove rnme nt contributions for retirem ent, life insurance, health benefits an d F.I.C .A.
54

O B L IG A T IO N S FO R F U R N I U RE

Mr. Rooney. How much has been obligated for furniture to date 

in the current fiscal year?

Mr. Anderson. The total obligation to December 31, for furniture, 

is $290,000 in round figures.

Mr. Rooney. What do you expect to be the total obligations for 

this purpose in the current fiscal year?

Mr. Anderson. $780,000.

Mr. Rooney. Are you deducting this from your base?

Mr. Anderson. I misspoke. I should have said $770,000.

Yes, sir; we are deducting this from the base and $370,000 goes 

to GSA; $400,000 for the new buildings, and this is a deduct from that.

Mr. Rooney. Have all nonrecurring items been deducted from the 

base?

Mr. Anderson. Yes, sir.

P A R K IN G F E E S

Mr. Rooney. How much is in this budget for parking fees?

Mr. Anderson. $60,000 is requested.

Mr. Rooney. What parking fees have been allowed to date?

Mr. Airhart. We have experience, only, since, Mr. Chairman, the 

regulation went out from the conference in September. So far, I do 

not know the exact figure, but it is only a few hundred dollars. If th at 

continues, this is a high estimate but we have no way of knowing.

Mr. Rooney. What do you allow an individual in connection with 

parking fees?

Mr. Airhart. Everything from a penny on up to overnight parking; 

for instance, in a hotel-----

Mr. Rooney. You do not have a regulation of so much a day?

Mr. Airhart. No, sir. We have had requests come in where they 

asked for a penny because they parked where a parking meter gives 

them 12 minutes or 10 minutes for a penny.

Mr. R ooney. What is the highest amount requested of you in a 

day for parking fees?

Mr. Garabedian. Several dollars, Mr. Rooney. I do not have 

the figures with me but I conducted a survey myself and, as has been 

said, it ranges from a penny, or pennies, to several dollars.

travel of judges on assignment to other districts ■

Mr. Rooney. What is the tota l amount requested in this budget 

for travel, $1,990,000?

Mr. Anderson. Yes, sir. .

Mr. Rooney. Do you have the usual table on the travel of judges 

on assignment to other districts, which we annually expect?

Mr. Anderson. Yes, sir.

Mr. Rooney. May we have that?

(The material referred to follows:)
Service by senior judg es in circuit courts or district courts within circuits, Ju ly 1, 1960, to J un e SO, 1961

C ir c u it o r d is tr ic t

SENIOR CIRCUIT JUD GE

1s t cir c u it ..................................... .

2d cir cu it ...................................... .

D o ...........................................

D o ...........................................

D o ...........................................

3d cir cu it .......................... . .........

D o ...........................................

D o ...........................................

4t h cir c u it .............................. ..

6th c ir c u it ....................................

7t h cir cu it ....................................

D o ..........................................

8th cir cu it ....................................

D o ...........................................

D o ..........................................

9th c ir cu it __________________

D o I ” Z Z I “ Z ~ Z Z

D o ...........................................

D o ...........................................

D o ...........................................

D o ...........................................

10th c ir cu it ..................................

D o ...........................................

D o ...........................................

D o ...........................................

D o ...........................................

SENIO R DISTRICT JU DG ES

D is tr ic t of C o lu m b ia .............

1s t cir cu it : M assa ch u sett s. . 

2d ci rc uit :

N ew Y or k (e a s te rn ).. .. 

N ew Y ork (s o u th e rn )..

D o ................................

D o ................................

3d ci rc uit :

D ela w are ..........................

P en n sy lv an ia (e as te rn ).

N am e of ju dg e Pla ce of se rv ic e N u m b er of tr ia ls

N u m b er 

of tr ia l 

day s

C ost of t ra v el

Judge La w cl erk Se cr et ar y R ep ort er C rier T ota l

1st cir cu it $360 $366 M agru der, C alx e rt------ - — - H an d, L e a rn e d .— . . -----------

TT ino Vs C u r m ll Cl do 245 $156 $151 552

do C o n n ecti cu t__________________ 3 5 2<1 cir cu it 201 69 49 319 Sw an , T hom as \V --------- . . . . 3<1 ci rc uit iv iaris , A iu eri r>.-----------------

do V irgin Is la n d s___________ -___ 1 2 (') 53 

3,319 

1,52 2 

821

3d cir cu it 63 1,54 8

567

437

37

255

764

r or m ai l, i ju m p 4t h cir cu it _ __________ ______ 831 521 940 434

384

So pe r, M orr is A___. . . . . . . . . . tith cir cu it Sim on s, C har le s C . . . ------- 7t h cir cu it _ M aj or, J. K a r l - . . . . . . . - . - -----

do Illino is (s o u th ern )____________ 37 449

1,002 8th cir cu it 194 238 Q ard n cr, A rc hib al d do S an born , Jo h n B . . . . . . . . . —

AA o odr ou gh , Jo se ph W do

Bon e 1 Tomer T Oth cir cu it _ 142 __ . ______ 142

TT a « 1 v W illi a m do

■ \1 $^ (h pw s C li fto n d o ______________________ ________ O rr W illi a m l

4

' d o

_______________________

242

(• )

(0113

80

} 1,565

413

19

522

182

521

309

424

521 

422

80

1,565

413

19

522

do N evada

V o j h * AVniter L ® Oth cir cu it ___________________

R fn n h p n s A lb ert T« 8 do C IV p ile Ila , a i i a i i kJ

P h il li p s, O ne L ......................... C olo ra do........ - ..................... .. 2 3

do 10 th cir cu it ___________________

ff uxm an W alt er A do

do K an sas. ______________ 13 7

li ra t to n S a m Cl 8 10fh cir cu it

S ch w ei nhaut, H e n ry _______ T^i cf rl nf o f C o lu m b ia 27

1

24

16

17

3

2

3

63

3

73

24

44

10

3

19

X71SL11VL til vU llu u uia . -- - - - - - - _

\1 as sa ch use tt s jY L C vari ny, w im a m i _ __ __ _

N ew Y ork (e as te rn ) B ye rs , M o rt im er W . . . . . . . . . N ew Y ork (s ou th er n) C la ncy , Jo h n AV. Pnn cy or K d iv u rd \ do 561 561 UUIlgui) DUna lU A .* .. . . . . . .

T^‘ilw ‘11 V in n a n t T, do

T o o b v P a u l C P en n sy lv an ia (e as te rn ) 96 974 96 juea iiy , r a w v* .. . . . . . . . . . . . . K ir k p atr ic k , W il li am ............. ____ d o .............................................. 409 240 ................ | 1,623

See fo o tn o te s'a t en d o f tab le , p. 57.
Service by senior judges in circuit courts or d istrict courts within circuits, Ju ly 1, I960, to J un e SO, 1961— Co ntinued

Circ ui t or distric t Na me of judge Place of service N um be r 

of tr ials

Num be r 

of trial 

da ys

Co st of tr av el

Judge Law clerk Secretary Re po rte r Crier To tal

SE NI OR DISTRICT JU DG ES — COn.

4th circuit:

M ary la nd........................... Che sn ut, W. C al vi n_______ 4th ci rc ui t......... .. . .

N ort h Ca rolin a (m id dle ). .. Virgi nia (e as te rn )___ Hayes, J oh nson J .................... M ar yl an d..................................... N or th Carolina (m iddle). Virginia (eastern) 6112

1

1

3

107

33

2

6

4

” ’$955’

45

113

132

42

494

139

46

163

32

1,730

189

................. ................. '"'$ 955

45

113

132

42

789

139

87

163

32

1,730

189

Hutch eson , Ste rling. Do _______ . ___ d o .. . Nor th Ca rolin a (eas tern )........ South Ca rolin a (w es te rn ).... 4th circuit........... . . . D o....................... .do... Do.............. ........do ................... ................... Virgin ia (w est ern)............ Ba rksdale , Alfr ed D ............... Virgin ia (w est ern )................. 7 7 $295 D o_____ _________ ___ do .......... ............................ 4th circuit.................. ........... D o....................... Pa ul, Jo hn................. Virgin ia (we ster n 1 4 6 $16 15 $10 6th circuit: Fl or id a (n or th er n) ............... De Va ne, Dozier A.................. Alab am a (sou thern)................. D o .. . . ___ ........do......................................... Florida (n or th er n) ........... D o............................. ........do......................................... Flor ida (sou thern).............. 28 53 D o............ .. .. ........do........................ .............. 5th circuit______ _____ Fl or id a (sou th er n) ................ Barkes, William J .................. Florida (s o u th e rn ).. .. .......... 2

11

9

4

7

3

5

8

40

27

1

2

2

10

22

4

19

3

15

20

70

61

2

7

D o .............. Ho lla nd , Jo hn .................... Florida (n or th er n) ___ 409

628 409 628 D o________ ........do ......................................... Mississipp i (sou thern) ............ Miss iss ipp i (n or th er n) . . . . 6th cir cu it:

Mich igan (eastern)..............

Cox, Allen................................ Mississipp i (n or th er n) .

Pica rd , Fra nk A..................... Mich iga n (e as tern ).. 672 322 443 $318 1,755 Tenness ee (eastern)............. 7th cir cu it: Illino is (e as te rn ).__ 8th c irc uit: N eb ra sk a. . D ar r, Leslie R.'° ................. Ten nes see (ea ste rn).................... \\ ham , Fred L ....................... Illinois (n or thern) ..................... 691

16 691 344 Del eh an t, Jo hn W ............ . Neb ra sk a..... ............. 328 0th cir cu it: Ca liforn ia (n ort her n).. Roche , Mich ael J ............ . Californ ia (n or thern) .......... Ca liforn ia (sou thern) . W einberge r, Ja co b.................. Californ ia (sou th er n) .. N ev ad a____ Foley , Roger T ....................... ........do.......................... 198

1,218

538

2

142

945

377

340

2,163

915

2

Do_______ . . ......(io. ... Haw aii........... D o______ ____do............... ....................... 9th circuit___ W ashing ton (w es tern )..

T ota l...........

Bo wen, Jo hn C.

1’............ W ashin gto n (w est ern)...............

348 709 r» ZK, J 4,726 781 318 26,491

Or

05
S U M M A R Y

C ir cu it o r d is tr ic t N u m b er 

of ju dg es

Pla ce of service N u m b er 

of tri als

N u m b er 

of tri al 

day s

C ost o f tr avel

Judge Law cl er k S ec re ta ry R eport er C rier T o ta l

21

6

$7,177 

392

$2,0 68

521

$2.390 $11,635 913

D o .................................................... D is tr ic t co u rt s............................... 19 17

T o ta l............................ - - ......... 27 19 17 7,56 9 2, .589 2,390 12, 548

5

25 — — — 908 9,175 377 1,95 9 1,28 5 12,6 58 Sen io r d is tr ic t ju d g e s.. . . . -------- — D o .................................................... D is tr ic t co u rt s................... ........... 329 692 425 $781 $318

T o ta l............................ - ............. 30 329 692 10,083 425 2,336 781 318 13,943

57 348 709 17,652 3,01 4 4,726 781 318 26,491

1 C os t of tr av el in clu ded u n d er ass ig nm ent to se rv e in 1st cir cu it (S an Ju a n , P u ert o Ric o) . See sta te m e n t on as si gnm en ts of se ni or ju dges for se rv ic e in o th er ci rc ui ts .

» R et ir ed M ar. 31,19 61.

• R et ir ed S ep t. 30, 1960.

♦ R et ir ed J a n . 3, 1961. * N o t ra v el or s ub si st en ce e xp en se s cl ai m ed .

« R et ir ed A pr. 1,1 961.

’ C ost of tr av el (1 w ay ) San Fra nc is co , C al if., to M is so ula , M o n t. , re tu rn tr ip su bseq u en t to J u n e 3 0,1 961; no cl ai m for s ubsi st en ce .

8 R et ir ed Jan . 25, 1961.

’ R et ir ed M ar . 1,1 961.

R eti re d M ar . 31,19 61.

» R et ir ed M ar. 15, 1961. 

w R et ir ed Ju n e 5,1 961.

C i
Assignments of senio r judge s for service in special courts and circuit courts or district courts of other circuits, Ju ly 1, 1960, to J un e 30, 1961.

Per io d o f d es ig nation

C o n tr ib u ti n g c o u rt N am e of ju dg e C o u rt vis ited

SE NIOR CIRCUIT JUDG E

1st cir cu it . 

D o . . . .

D o .

3d cir cu it . 

D o . . . 

D o . . . 

D o . . .

10 th cir cu it .

SENIOR DISTRICT JUD GE

3d ci rc uit : P en n sy l­ v an ia (e as te rn ).

4t h cir cuit : Flo ri da 

(s outh er n). 7t h ci rc uit:

Il linois (e a s te rn ).. .. 

D o ...................

D o.

8t h ci rc uit:

M is so uri (w est ern ).

D o .

D o .

N eb ra sk a.

D o . . .

Oth ci rc uit: 

N e v ad a. 

D o ..

M agru der, C alv ert . ------do ..........................

.d o .

M ar is , A lb ert B .

___ d o ....................

___ d o ....................

------do ....................

P h il li p s, Orie L .

K ir k p atr ic k , W illiam A.

H oll and, Jo h n W ____

W h am , F re d L . 

. . . . d o ...................

____d o ......................

Ree ve s, A lb er t L .

.d o .

.d o .

D ele h an t, J o h n W . . . . 

. . . . d o ...............................

F o le p Rog er T .

2d cir cu it ..................

D is tr ic t of C olu m ­

b ia c ir cu it. 

Em er gen cy C ourt of A pp ea ls. 

Illino is (n o rt h e rn ).

1st cir cu it ..................

9t h cir cu it .................

E m er gen cy C o u rt of A pp ea ls. 

D is tr ic t of C olu m ­

bia c ir cu it.

C o u rt of C ust om s 

an d P a te n t 

A pp ea ls.

N ew Y or k 

(s ou th er n).

Colo ra do_____ P en n sy lv an ia 

(w es te rn ). 

N ew Y or k 

(s ou th er n).

N o rt h C ar ol in a 

(e as te rn ).

Flo ri da (s o u th ern ). N ew Yor k 

(s outh er n). 

C al ifor ni a 

(s outh er n). 

P en n sy lv an ia 

(w es te rn ).

Illino is (n o rt h e rn ). . 

. . . . d o .........................

F ro m —

Sep t 26,1960

N ov. 14,1960

(’)

Oct. 1,1960

Feb . 6,1961

(’)

Jan . 3,1961

Oct. 1,9160

M ar. 13,1961

J u ly 1,1960

N o v . 1,1960

M ay 1,1960

Oct. 1,1960

Jan . 1,1961

Ju n e 1,1961

M ay 1,1961

Sep t. 12,1960

Oct. 24,1960

T o —

A ct ual 

d ays > 

on

as sign ­

m en t

N u m ­

ber of 

tr ia ls

N u m ­

ber of 

tr ia l 

day s Ju dge

Ju n e 30,1961 

N ov. 25,1960 

(’)

Ju n e 30,1961 

F eb . 18,1961 

(<)

(’)

Jan . 31,1961

Ju n e 30,1961

M ay 19,1961

J u ly 31,1 960 

N o v . 30,1 960 

M a y 31,1960

(’)

56

M ar . 31,1961

30,1 961 26 5 14

(•) 4 1 1

30,1961 65 13 38

15,1960

1,1960 { 72

6 23

$203

386

427

345

464

596

935

1,933

432

797

1,095

772

2,03 7

878

251

1,090

1,681

C ost o f tr avel

Law

cl er k

Secre ­

ta ry

R eport er C rier T o ta l

$32 $235

386

427

$699

377

1,044

’ 841

596

1,161

1,933

432

797

1,095

1,339

3,208

1,372

251

1,940

2,90 7

216

567

1,106

494

$65

850

1,226
SENIOR JUDG E, OTHER

C our t of Customs an d 

Pate nt Ap peals .

T ota l...... ................

Jac ks on , Jo sep h R . . . . D istri ct of C olum ­

bia .

Ju ly 1,1960 Ja n. 1,1961

De c. 31,1960 

Ju ne 30,1961 { 155 73 140

700 167 373 14,322 1,292 4,275 65 19,954

SU M M A R Y

Con trib ut in g court s N um be r 

of judges

Cou rts vis ited

Actua l 

da ys on ass ignmen t Num be r of tr ials

N um be r 

of trial 

da ys

Co st of trave l

Judg e Law clerk Se cr et ar y Re po rte r Crier To tal

Circ ui t co ur ts................ ......................... 3

1

2

Ci rcuit co ur ts................................. 41

(’) 6

1,530 699 32 2,261 Do....................... .............. ............. Distric t co ur ts.......... . .......................

Do............................................. ......... Special co ur ts______ 891 377 1,268

T ota l............................................... 6 47 2,421 1,076 32 3,529

D is tric t co ur ts......... ............................... 5

1

Distric t courts 442

56

94 233 10,966

935

4,243 65 15,274 

1,151 Do......... . ................... ....................... Special court s 216

T ota l........ . .......... .............. ........... 6

1

498

155

94

73

233

140

11,901 216 4,243 65 16,425 Special court s, to ta l............................. Distric t co ur ts

Grand to ta l__________ ____ _ 13 700 167 373 14,322 1,292 4,275 65 19,954

> Actua l d ay s o n a ssi gn me nt ba sed on d ates of ar riv al a nd d ep arture. N um be r of day s 4 Serve d from M ay 7, 1961, to M ay 9, 1961, to com ple te unfin ish ed busine ss un de r prior lis ted for assig nm ents at di stric t courts are of record, wh ere as nu m be r of d ay s in at te nd - ye ar des ign ation.

ance at circuit courts was c on str uc ted from tra ve l expense vouch ers. 5 Inc lud es expense s in cide nt to ser vin g in the U.S . Distric t Cou rt for the V irgin Islands,

a P er m an en t desig nation. Fe b. 1 to Feb. 6, 1961. (See st at em en t on service of senior judges w ith in c ircuits.)

’ Serv ing as spec ial master in La ke M ich igan w ater d ive rsion cases. 6 Serve d from Ju ly 25, 1960, to Ju ly 31, 1960, to comp lete unfin ish ed bu sin ess un de r prior year des ign ation.
Assignments of judges for service in special courts and circuit courts or district courts of other circuits, Ju ly 1, I960, to J un e SO, 1961

Perio d of designa tion

Con trib uting c ourt Name of judge Court visited From— To—

Actual 

days > 

on

assignmen t

CIRCUIT JUD GE

3d circ uit.........................

Do .............................

Do .............................

5th circuit.......................

6th circ uit___________Oth ci rcuit___________

Do .............................

10th circ uit......................

Dis tric t of Colum bia

circu it.

Goodrich, H erb e rt .. .. ___ do_____________ ___ do_______ _____

Tu ttle, Elbe rt P ____ Ma rtin , Joh n D., S r. . Pope, Wal ter L _____ McAll ister, Thomas F.

Mu rrah, Alfred P ........ Fah y, Cha rles..............

1st c ircuit_________ 2d c ircu it___ _____

___ do......................... ___ do____ _______

Flori da (south ern ) ..

2d c irc uit_________

Eme rgency Cou rt of Appeals. New York (ea ste rn). 

Court of C laim s.......

Sept. 22.1960 Feb. 20,1961 Jun e 5,1961 Sept. 22.1960 Jan . 2.1961 

Oct. 10,1960 

(’)

Jan . 3,1961 Jan. 17.1961

Sept. 22,1960 Feb. 25,1961 Jun e 10,1961 Oct. 7,1960 Mar. 31,1961 Oct. 22,1960 

(’)

Feb. 3,1961 

Jan . 17,1961

1

11

88

(’)

39

1

DISTRICT JUD GE

1st circuit: M as sa ch usetts.

2d circuit:

New York (ea ste rn).New York (so uth ­

ern ).

Delawa re.................

3d circuit:

Pen nsy lva nia .......... (we ste rn).

Do .....................

4th circuit:

S outh C a ro li n a

(we ste rn).

Virgin ia (ea st er n) ... W est V ir g in ia (no rth ern ).

5th circuit:

A la b a m a (n o r ­ thern).Louis iana (ea ste rn).

Do ......................

8th circuit: Nebra ska __

Sweeney, George C __

Bartels, John R ............

Bicks, Alexander____

Steel, Ed wi nD ., J r .... Gourley, Wallace S—.. 

Miller, Jo hn .................Wyche, Charles C . . . .

Hoffm an, Wal ter E .. . Watkin s, Ha rry E . . . .Lyn ne, Seybourn H .. .

Wright, J. Skelly.........

___ do....................... .

Van Pelt, Robert.........

Florida (so ut he rn ). .

Pen nsy lvania (wester n).California

(so uth ern ).

2d ci rcuit_________ Flor ida (so ut he rn ). .

New York 

(easter n).

Flor ida (so ut he rn ). .

Louisi ana (eas ter n).. 

2d ci rcuit................. .

New York (south ­

ern ).

___ do.........................___ do.........................

Dis tric tofC olumbia.

Mar. 30,1961

Apr. 3,1961

Ma y 1,1961

Mar. 6,1961

Jan. 3.1961

Jan . 9,1961

May 9,1961 May- 5,1961

Nov. 1,1960

Jul y 15,1960Jun e 12,1961 Apr. 11,1961

May 20,1961

Apr. 29,1961

(•)

Ma y 6,1961

Mar. 31,1961Feb. 3,1961

Feb. 4,1961May 12,1961 May 19,1961

Nov. 30,1960Aug. 15,196J

June 30,1961® May 12,1961 1

2626

25

4

26

3226

4

12

1818

19

34

Num ­

ber of 

tria ls

Num ­ber of 

trial 

days

Cost of travel

Judge Law clerk Secre­ tar y Re­ porter Crier Tota l

$85 $S5

142 $52 194

403 216 619

27 43 1,481 1,276 $1.189 3,946

318 318

3 3 604 <831 1,435

11 14 1,157 ‘ $.563 1,720

4 14 .569 414 388 $330 354 2,055

1 11 842 842

142 74 216

7 16 950 675 455 527 2,607

9 15 801 426 440 460 < 441 2,568

12 16 772 444 1,216

2 3 472 101 257 117 947

482 2.56 162 900

2 6 671 571

5 11 662 293 289 1,244

2 13 593 593

1 21 882 541 542 1,965

g

*
9th ci rc uit : C al if orn ia 

(s o u th ern ).

10 th ci rc uit :

O kla hom a (w es tern ).

U ta h .............................

M ath es, W illiam O . . . .

R iz le v, Ros s................

F lo ri d a ( so uth er n) - .

Ten ne ss ee (e aste rn ), er n ).

N ew Y ork ( so uth ­

er n ). do

O ct . 17,1960

N o v . 1,1960

F eb . 20,1961 

N ov. 1,1960

Jan . 3,1961

Feb . 6,1961 

N ov. 1,1960

R it te r, W illis W

D o ......................... ____ d o .............. . ...............

D o ......................... Ch ris tenson , A. She rm an.

........ d o ......................

M ass achsue tts

D o ......................... N ew Y ork ( easte rn ), 

e ra ).

2d c ir c u it _________ .

O th er c ourt s:

C o u rt of C la im s........

C ust om s C o u rt____

T o ta l........................

M ad d en , J . W a rr e n __

R ao , P au l P .................. F lo ri d a ( so u th ern ). .

(’) 17 1 4 579

N ov. 17,1960 17 8 8 505 246 246 451 1, 448

D ec . 9,1960 39 13 21 1,615 1 615

M ar. 31,1961 34 5 19 1,649 1 640 N ov. 30,1960 33 11 18 871 636 1 507

Feb . 3,1961 16 5 11 707 612 542 594 2,4 55

F eb . 11,1961 6 104 97 201

N ov. 30,1960 32 11 16 1,328 551 1,879

580 140 283 19,286 6,45 3 4,905 3,255 1,475 35.374

8 U M M A R Y

C o n tr ib u ti n g co urt

N u m b er 

of ju dg es C o u rt s vis ited

A ct ual 

d ay s o n 

as si gn ­

m en t

N u m b er 

of tri al s

N u m b er 

of tr ia l 

d ay s

C ost o f tr avel

Ju dge Law

cl er k

Se creta ry R ep ort er C rier T o ta l

C ir c u it co u rt s.................. .................. .. 2

2

2

C ir cu it co u rt s......................................... 15

97

4

$630

2,085

318

$268 

2,107

$898

5,381

318

T o ta l..................................................

D is tr ic t co u rt s_________ _________ 30 46 $1,1 89 Spe ci al c o u rts ........................................

6 116 30 46 3,033 2,375 1,189 6,597

D is tr ic t co u rt s.............................. ............. 2

14

C ir cu it c o u rt s............................ . .......... 16

410

624

14,1 97

330 

3,651

162

3,003

— 1,116 

25, .581

T o ta l..................................................

D is tr ic t co u rt s__ ____ ___________ 99 221 $3,255 $1,475

16 426 99 221 14,821 3.981 3,165 3,255 1.475 26,6 97

Spe ci al co u rt s.............................................. 1

1 C ir cu it c o u r t s ____ ______ _______ 632 104 1,328 97

—

— 201

1,879

T o ta l...................................................

D is tr ic t co u rt s....................................... 11 16 551

2 38 11 16 1,432 97 551 2,080

G ra n d to ta l.................. ......... ........ 24 580 140 283 19,286 6, 453 4,90 5 3,255 1,475 35,374

C5

1 A ctu al day s o n ass ig nm ent ba se d on dat es of a rr iv al an d dep art u re . N u m b er of day s li st ed for as si gnm ents a t d is tr ic t court s ar e of re co rd , w he re as n u m b er of d ays in a tt en d 

an ce a t sp ec ia l court s an d c ir cu it c ourt s was c onst ru cte d from tr av el ex pe ns e vo uch er s.

2 J u d g e d id n o t se rv e.

2 P erm a n en t de si gn at io n.

* In clu d es co st o f tr av el of assis ta n t la w c le rk .

’ D ep u ty c le rk .

* S er ved fr om Ju n e 24, 1960, to J u ly 25, 1960, to co m ple te unfi nis hed busi nes s u n d er pri or- yea r des ig nat io n.

7 D es ig nat io n e nded J u ly II , 1961.

8 Ser ve d fr om Sep t. 7, 1960, to S ep t. 23, 1960, to co m ple te unfi nis hed busi nes s u n d e r 

pri or- yea r des ig nat io n.
62

N O N R E C U R R IN G IT EM S

Mr. R ooney. While the members of the committee are inspecting 

this document, which we shall insert at this point in the record, I 

should like to inquire how much of this $4.7 million request is nonrecurring?

If you do not have it available a t the moment, please insert it at this 

point in the record.

Mr. Anderson. I am sorry I do not have that.

(The material referred to follows:)

The p art of the estimate of $4,700,000 for fiscal year 1963 which is nonrecurring 

is detailed as follows:

For installation of telephones___________________________________ $1, 000

General office equipmen t_______________________________________ 45, 000

Lawbooks, accessions__________________________________________ 284, 000

To tal_______ ____________ ________ ____________________ ’ 330,000

i Related who lly to funds requested for new judges and staffs.

Mr. Rooney. When you supply that, break down the items tha t 

make up the total of these nonrecurring items.

Mr. Anderson. Yes, sir.

Judge McGuire. As a ma tter of fact, I think you will find it extremely difficult for a judge to get out of his district because of the 

committee conference setup. By the time you get through with what 

you have to do, you have to stay home.

Mr. Rooney. I notice that the document just inserted in the 

record is entitled “Service by Senior Judges in Circuit Courts or District Courts Within Circuits.”

Does this apply to all judges, including all district judges?

Mr. Anderson. The top table is the service of senior judges within 

their own circuits. The second table is for senior judges who took 

assignments outside of their circuits and the third table is for active 

judges, as we distinguish them from those senior judges, who took 

assignments outside of their circuits.

Mr. R ooney. Between the three pages, we have the entire picture 

as far as the Judiciary is concerned; is th at a correct statement?

Mr. Anderson. Yes, sir; other than the travel of active judges 

right within their own circuits, which is done day by day. This is the 

assignment picture.

Mr. Rooney. Mr. Magnuson?

travel expenses

Mr. Magnuson. With the appointment of all of these new judges, 

would tha t not save you something on travel expenses?

Mr. Anderson. We anticipate this will; yes, sir.

Mr. Magnuson. Still you are anticipating your travel expenses 

will go up by $400,000, or roughly that?

Mr. Anderson. Some of the new judges will travel because there 

are numerous places to hold court within districts. They will work 

at headquarters and then they will hold court elsewhere and we have 

to provide funds for tha t purpose. Where there was one judge doing 

that, perhaps with two of them there will not be as much travel 

involved but we have to wait and see.
63

Mr. Magnuson. Does this $400,000 contemplated increase also 

take into account the travel expenses of supporting personnel?

Mr. Anderson. Yes, sir. That $400,000 is made up of two items; 

$300,000 for the Travel Expense Act and $100,000 for the new judges 

and staff.

Mr. Magnuson. The $300,000 is all for supporting personnel, in 

view of the policy you have adopted?

Mr. Anderson. It is also for those judges who elect to claim per 

diem in lieu of subsistence. They may elect to do that.

Mr. Magnuson. Why would tha t increase costs?

Mr. Anderson. Because they were claiming the $12 per diem 

before and now they may claim $16.

Mr. Magnuson. The judges?

Mr. Anderson. Yes, sir.

Mr. Magnuson. I must be confused. I thought they had a $25 

per diem for judges.

Mr. Anderson. They have an election. They may claim actual 

expenses of subsistence not to exceed $25 or they may claim per diem.

Mr. Magnuson. Of what?

Mr. Anderson. Of $16 per day.

Mr. Magnuson. Was that formerly $12?

Mr. Anderson. Yes, sir. That was formerly $12 and it was 

increased by the Travel Expense Act.

Mr. Magnuson. I remember that, but they formerly also had the 

option of $25 or actual expenses?

Mr. Anderson. Right.

Mr. Magnuson. Up to $25?

Mr. Anderson. Tha t is correct. The ceiling on actual expenses is now $30, but they are still limited 

to $25.

Mr. Magnuson. This includes hotel accommodations and food?

Mr. Anderson. Yes, sir.

Mr. Magnuson. Still you had judges who only put in for the $12 

a day under the old system?

Mr. Anderson. Th at is correct; yes, sir. Indeed so.

Mr. Magnuson. Now you have those who put in for $16 instead 

of $12?

Mr. Anderson. Yes, sir.

Mr. Magnuson. Actual expenses?

Mr. Anderson. Yes, sir.

Mr. Magnuson. Tha t is all.

Mr. Rooney. Mr. Marshall?

Mr. Marshall. No questions.

Mr. Rooney. Mr. Bow?

DOCKET C O N D IT IO N S O F D IS TR IC T CO U RT OF V A R IO U S C IR C U IT S

Mr. Bow. I would like to have you get for me the docket conditions 

of the District Court of the Firs t Circuit of Massachusetts and the same information regarding the southern district of Florida between 

the period of March 1 and June, 1961.

Mr. Anderson. Yes, sir.

(The requested information follows:)

83455— 62------ 5
64

Con ditio ns of dockets in the judicial districts indicated and f or the periods indicated

M assa ch u sett s: A p r. 1, 1961, to J u n e 30, 1961:

P en d in g , A p r. 1, 1961____ ________________________________

F il e d .................................................................................................................................

T e rm in a te d __________ ____ ____________________________________________

P en d in g , Ju n e 30,1 96 1_________________________________________________

P e n n sy lv a n ia (w es te rn ): Jan . 1, 1961, to M ar. 31, 1961:

P en d in g , J a n . 1,1961................................................ ......... ......... ................... .............

F il e d ....................................................................................... .............................................

T e rm in a te d ______________________________________ ____ ________________

P en d in g , M ar. 3 1,1 96 1_____ ______ _____________ ______________________

S outh C aro li n a (w es te rn ): Jan . 1, 1961, to M ar. 31, 1961:

P en d in e , J a n . 1, 1961_____________________________________________

F il e d .....................................................................................................................................

T e rm in a te d ___________________________________________________________

P en d in g , M ar. 31, 1961____ ___________________________________________ Z

F lo ri d a (s outh ern ): A pr . 1, 1961, to J u n e 30, 1961:

P en d in g , A pr. 1, 1961______________________________________________

F il e d __________________________________________________________________

T e rm in a te d ___________________________________________________________

P en din '? , J u n e 30,1 961____ ______ _______________________ ______ _______

F lo ri d a (s outh ern ): Jan . 1, 1961, to M ar. 31, 1961:

P en d in g , J a n . 1, 1961___________________________________________

F il e d ................................................................... .................................................................

T e rm in a te d ________________________________ ____ _______ _____ ________

P en d in g , M ar. 3 1,1 961_________________________________________________

C iv il C rim in a l 1

1,293 156

295 99

297 93

1,291 165

1,348 119

249 101

315 88

1,28 2 132

193 79

64 37

58 60

199 52

1,404 559

421 252

498 237

1,327 573

1,49 6 657

421 231

513 327

1,404 559

1

 E xclu des c as es tra nsf er re d u n d er R ule 20: F ed era l R ule s of C ri m in al P ro ce dure s.

Mr. Bow. I would like the same information on the Third Circuit, 

Western District of Pennsylvania, and the southern district of Florida.

Mr. Anderson. Yes, sir.

(The information requested appears above.)

Mr. Bow. The same information for the Fourth Circuit of South 

Carolina and the southern district of Florida.

Mr. Anderson. Yes, sir.

(The information requested appears above.)

Mr. Bow. The same information for the Fourth Circuit of South 

Carolina and the southern district of Florida.

Mr. Anderson. Yes, sir.

Which district of South Carolina?

Mr. Bow. The western district.

Mr. Anderson. Thank you.

(The requested information appears above.)

Mr. Bow. Do you assign members of the Customs Court to the 

circuit courts of the district?

Mr. Olney. I believe they are entitled to such assignment under 

the law, but I do not believe any such has been made.

Mr. Bow. I noticed in the statement you gave us the assignment 

of the members of the Customs Court to the Second Circuit of the 

southern district from November 1 to November 30, 1960, for a total 

of 32 days.

That is an assignment of a judge in the Customs Court to the district court?

Mr. Olney. The district court; yes, sir.

Mr. Bow. The district court in the southern district of Florida?

Mr. Olney. Yes, sir.

Judge McGuire. Might I go off the record?

Mr. Rooney. Excuse me, Judge McGuire.

He tried 11 cases, did he not?

Mr. Bow. He tried 11 cases and had 16 days of trial out of 31.

Mr. Rooney. That is pretty good; is it not?
65

Mr. Olney. Yes. Mr. Bow. I would not say it is so good when you look at the record 

of the Customs Court up in New York.

That is all I have.

Thank vou, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Rooney. Well, gentlemen, we shall at this point recess until 1:30 this afternoon at which time we will get to the fifth item entitled “ Salaries and Expenses, the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts.” Do you feel it is necessary for you to come back, Judge McGuire?

Judge McGuire. I think probably under the circumstances I might 

just as well see the thing through.

Mr. Rooney. I wanted to extend you our compliments and I did 

not know whether I should do it now or later on.

Judge McGuire. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Rooney. Very well, gentlemen, then we shall reconvene at 1:30 

this afternoon if tha t is agreeable to everybody.

A FT E R N O O N SESSIO N

Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts

Object classification

[In tho us an ds of dollars]

Pe rson ne l com pensation:

Per m an en t po sit ions .....................................

Po sitio ns oth er tha n per m an en t________ O th er pe rso nnel c om pe ns atio n--------------

Tota l p ers onnel c om pensa ti on.. ............

Direc t o bligations: 11 Pe rson ne l c om pe ns ation--------- --------

12 Pe rson ne l b en efits _________________ 21 Tra ve l and t ra ns po rtat io n of perso ns

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

23 R en t, c om mu nic ati ons, an d utiliti es . 24 Pri nting an d repr od uc tio n....................

25 Oth er service s------------- -----------------

26 Supplies a nd m at er ia ls ......... . ..............

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

Tot al dire ct o bligations ......................

Rei mbu rsab le oblig atio ns: 11 Pe rson ne l co mpe ns ation........................

Tota l o bligations .................................

1961 a ctua l 1962 estim ate 1963 est im ate

1,058 1,080 1,197

43 45 79

12 10 10

1,114 1,135 1,286

1,112 1,135 1,286

80 82 92

43 59 69

1 1 1

66 86 90

21 20 26

9 9 9

21 19 21

14 31 14

1,368

1

1,442 1,609

1,369 1,442 1,609

Personnel sum mar y

1961 a ct ua l 1962 es tim ate 1963 est im ate

T o ta l n u m b e r of pe rm an en t p o sit io n s__ _____ _______ ________ 160 160 181

F u ll -t im e eq uiva lent of oth er p o sit io n s____________________ 7 7 12

A ver ag e n u m b e r of all em pl oy ee s _ _____________________ 162 159 184

N u m b e r o f em pl oy ee s at, e nd of y ear _ _____________________ 175 165 190
66

Program, and financing

[I n thousa nds of dollars]

1961 act ual 1962 esti mate 1963 estimat e

Prog ram by activities:

Salaries and expenses:

Direct o blig atio ns.. . _____ _____ ___ _______ 1,368

1

1,442 1,609

Reimbu rsab le obligations________________ _______

To tal obligations.... ............ . .......... ........ - . . . . 1,369

- 1

1,442 1,609 Financing:

Adv ance s a nd reim burse ments from oth er accoun ts_____

New o bligational au tho rity ( ap prop ria tio n)_____ _____ 1,368 1,442 1,609

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

This afternoon we shall consider the last of the five items to which 

reference was made previously, which five items make up the 

$48,794,000 requested under “ Courts of appeals, district courts, and 

other judicial services.” This last item is titled “Salaries and Expenses, 

Administrative Office, U.S. Courts.” The request is in the amount 

of $1,609,000, which would be a requested increase of $167,250 over 

the amounts appropriated to date in the current fiscal year. It 

appears at page 384 of the committee print, and the details with 

regard thereto are to be found at pages 150 through 171d of the 

justifications, which pages we shall insert at this point in the record. 

(The pages referred to follow:)

Statement relating appropriation estimate to current appropriation

1962 ap pro pria tion In ann ual ac t................................................................................. ........ ................. $1,426, 750

1962 app rop riation in sup plemen tal a ct ____________________ ________ _________________ 15,000

ase for 1963................................................................................................................................... 1,441,750

Ne t difference, 1963 over 1962:

Req uire ments

1962 appropria ted

1963

estim ate

Difference, 

increase 

(+ ) or decrease ( —)

$1,441,750 $1,609,000 +$167,250

To tal estim ate for 1962................................... ................................... ................ ........................ l, 609,000

Statement showing analysis by object

Object 1962 estim ate 1963 esti ma te

Increase (+ ) 

or

decrease ( —)

11

12 

21 

22

23

24

25

26 

31

Pers onnel com pens ation__________

Pers onnel b ene fits........... ........... ........

Tra vel an d tran spo rta tion of persons

Tra nsp ort ation of thing s__________

Re nt, communications, an d u tilities .

Pr intin g a nd rep rodu ctio n________

Oth er se rvic es.......................................

Supp lies a nd m ater ials........................

Eq uip men t— .......................... ...........

To tal obligations----------------------

$1,135,000 

82,000 

59,000 

1,230 

85,600 

20,000 

9,000 

19,000 

30,92 0

$1,285,650 

92,200 

68,600 

1,230 

89,700 

26, 400 

10,000 

21,100 

14,120

+$15 0,650 

+10,200 

+9 ,60 0

+4 ,10 0 

+6 ,40 0 

+1 ,00 0 

+2 ,10 0 

-1 6, 80 0

1,441,7 50 1,609 ,000 + 167,250
67

Summar y of increased requirements for 196S

Na ture of expense (or savings): 1. Deduction for nonrecu rring expenses authorized for 1962__

2. Provision for within-grade salary adva ncements: Com pensation ___________________________ $20, 050

Benefits________________________________ 1, 400

3. Twenty-one additio nal clerical positions requ ired to handle

increased workload resulting from the creation of 73 new 

judgeships by the a ct of May 19, 1961, Public Law 87—36__

4. To cover increased subsistence (per diem) allowance and parking fees authorized pursuant to the Tra vel Expense 

Act, as ame nded____________________ - ___________— 5. Additional sum required for expenses relating to the revision

of the general rules of practice and procedure in the U.S. 

cou rts_____________________________________________

Net increase, 1963 over 1962_______________________

Amount

— $24, 800

21, 450

118, 000

7, 600

45, 000

167, 250

JUST IFICA TION

Language changes

None.

Objectives

This appropriation provides for the salaries of th e Director, the Dep uty Direc­ tor, and other personnel of the Adm inistrative Office of the U.S. Courts, and the necessary operating expenses of the office, including trav el, comm unication services, supplies, equipment, and so forth. The Director, under the supervision and direction of the Judicial Conference of the United States, has adm inistra tive jurisdic tion over th e courts of appeals and distric t courts of t he United States, the distric t courts of the Canal Zone, Guam, and the Virgin Islands and a lesser ad­ min istrative jurisdiction over the Court of Claims, the Court of Customs and Pa tent Appeals and the Customs Court. The Director also has adm inistrative 

jurisdiction over the Federal probation and ban kruptcy systems. For da ta as to the specific duties and responsibilities of the Director and the basic sta tut ory auth orities, reference is made to section N of the Digest of A ppro­ pria tions, The Judiciary , on file with the Bureau of the Budget and the Appropria tion s Comm ittees of the Congress.

General justification

The estimate for 1963 prov ides for 21 additional clerical positions required inciden t to the creation of 73 additional judgeships by the act of May 19, 1961, Public Law 87-36. In add itio n to providing the new judges and the ir supporting personnel with equipment and libraries, the office, on a continuing basis, will be engaged in handling an increase d volume of clerical duties occasioned by the activities of the new judges. The estimate includes an additional sum required to finance the program and activities of the Judicial Conference Committe e on rules of prac tice and procedure. Provision also has been made for an increased subsistenc e (per diem) allowance and parking fees auth oriz ed pursu ant to the 

Travel Expense Act, as amen ded.

Detailed justification

The appropriation estimate for fiscal year 1963 is $1,609,000, a net increase of $167,250 over the appropriati on for 1962. The request for additional obligational 

au tho rity is explained below:

Deduction for nonrecurring expenses

The sum of $24,800 represe nting nonrecurring expenses authorized for fiscal year 1962 has been deducte d in establishing the budgeta ry requ irem ents for 1963 

as follows:

Replacement of offset press______________________________________ $19, 500 Converter for photo stat machine_________________________________ 2, 000 Remington Ran d conve-filer_____________________________________ 2, 500 Wide carriage statistical type writer_______________________________ 800

To tal___________________________________________________ 24, 800
68

Provision for within-grade salary advancements

This appropriation will prov ide step increases to the personnel eligible therefor 

under the promotional plan provided for by title VII of the Classification Act 

of 1949, as amended. It is estim ated tha t these within-grade salary advanc ements 

will cost $21,450, of which $20,050 represents increases in compensation and 

$1,400 rela ted personnel benefits—G overnment contributions to the civil service 

retirem ent fund and for group life insurance. The estimate is net of anticipated 

savin gs due to turnover and represents approximately 85 percent of the full 

poten tial cost of within-grade salary advan cements.

Additional clerical personnel required to handle increased workload resulting from

the creation of new judgeships

It is requested th at the sum of $118,000 be provided for the employment of 21 

add itio nal clerical employees requ ired to handle an increased workload resulting 

from the creation of 73 judgeships by the act of May 19, 1961, Public Law 87-36. 

In addition to providing the new judges and their supporting staffs with equipment and libraries, the new personnel, on a contin uing basis, will be engaged in 

handling an increased volume of duties occasioned by the activities of the new 

judges. The act provides for the creation of 73 additional judgeships (10 circuit 

and 63 district) which represe nts an increase of over 23 percen t in the number of 

authorized judgeships. All of th e new circuit court judgeships and 49 of the new 

dis trict court judgeships have already been filled and more appointments are 

anticip ated. Under the item “Salaries of supporting personnel” comparable 

increases in the number of law clerks, secretaries, criers, and court reporters have 

been requested. Consistent with the increase in the num ber of judgeships and 

suppor ting staffs, it is requested t ha t the clerical force only of the Administrative 

Office be increased from 103 to 124. The clerical force referred to includes all 

personnel classified below grade (GS) 8, and wage board employees who are 

not delegated with supervisory authority . The following table shows in detail 

the personnel required for each of the divisions in the Administrative Office, 

inclu ding the cost of personnel benefits and related miscellaneous expenses:

Personnel compensation:

Division of Business Adm inistration:

Section of C ourt Services and Quarters:

Space and communications assistant, GS-7, at $5,355

per annum______________________________________ $5, 366

Purchasing clerk, GS-6, at $4,830 per a nn um __________ 4, 846

Clerk-stenographer, GS-4, at $4,040 per an nu m________ 4, 056

Warehouseman, WB-9, $2.53 per h ou r________________ 5, 262

Warehouseman, WB-6, $2.20 per h ou r________________ 4, 576

Total, Section of Court Services and Quarters (5 positio ns)_________________________________________ 24, 106

Retirement, Insurance, and Payroll Section:

Reviewer, GS-7, at $5,355 per annum_________________ 5, 366

Payroll clerk, GS-5, at $4,345 per ann um______________ 4, 347

Total, Retirem ent, Insurance, and Payroll Section

(2 positions)___________________________________ 9,713

Audit Section:

Accounting clerk, GS-6, at $5,355 per a nnum __________ 4, 846

Voucher examiner, GS-6, at $4,830 per annu m_________ 4, 846

Total, Audit Section (2 positions)____________j _____ 9, 692

Budget Office:

Accounts mainte nance clerk, GS-7, at $5,355 per a nn um .. 5, 366 

Clerk -stenographer, GS-4, at $4,040 per an nu m________ 4, 056

Tota l, Budget Office (2 positions)___________________ 9, 422

Records Section: Mail and file clerk, GS-4, at $4,040 per- =- = ■■-= 

annu m______________________________________________ 4, 056

Offset prin ting pla nt: Offset press operator, WB-14, at $ 2 .6 1 = ^ —— 

per hou r____________________________________________ 5, 449
69

Personnel compensation— Continued

Division of Business Adm inistration—Continued 

Personnel Section: Personnel assista nt, GS-7, at $5,355 per an nu m------------- $5, 366

Clerk-stengorapher, GS-5, at $4,345 per an nu m------------- 4. 347

Total, Personnel Office (2 positions )------------------------- 9, 713

Total, Division of Business Adm inistration (15 positio ns)_________________________________________ 72, 151

Division of Procedural Studies and Statistics: Statistical assista nt (civil), GS-7, at $5,355 per a nn um --------- 5, 366

Statistical assista nt (criminal), GS-7, at $5,355 per annum---- 5, 366

Statistical coding clerk, GS-6, at $4,830 per annu m-------------- 4, 846

Clerk-statistical typ ist, GS-5, at $4,345 per an nu m-------------- 4, 347

Tabulation-machine ope iato r, GS-5, at $4,345 per an nu m----- 4, 347

Punch operator, GS-4, at $4,040 per annu m------------------------ 4, 056

Total, Division of Procedural Studies and Statistics (6 positions)_____________________________________________ 28, 328

Grand tota l, Adm inistrative Office (21 positions)------------------ 100, 479

Deduct lapses (norm al savings due to vacancies)--------------- —3, 879

Net p erm ane nt (personnel compensation )________________ 96, 600

Personnel’benefits:

Governm ent contributions:

Ret irement____________________________________________ 6, 250

Life insurance--------------------- ------------------------------------------ 350

Health benefits________________________________________ L 200

Total, personnel benefits______________________________ 7, 800

Related’expenses:

Communications (including postage)__________________________ 2, 700

Printing and reproduction___________________________________ 1, 000

Other services_____________________________________________ 200

Supplies and materials______________________________________ 1, 700

Equ ipment and furnitu re (non recurring )______________________ 8, 000

Total, related expenses____________________________________ 13, 600

Grand total_____________________________________________ 118,000

Division of Business Administration

A total of 15 positions have been requested for the Division of Business Administration to be allocated as follows: Section of Court Services and Quarters (five positions).—The incumbents of three 

of these positions will be engaged in the procurement of supplies, equipment, law­ books, etc., and will perform duties relating to requests for new and additional space, and for comm unication services. Two wage-board positions will be as­ signed to the stockroom to cope with an increase in the volume of supplies and 

materials to be shipped to a greater number of judges. Retirement, Insurance, and Payroll Section (2 positions).— One of the two positions requested for the Retirem ent, Insurance, and Payroll Section will be assigned with the responsibility of reviewing forms and other material relating to the judicial survivors ann uity system. Each of the new judges must be informed of the program, the benefits to be derived if they should elect to participate, and the amounts they would be required to deposit into the fund should they elect to purchase credit for prior service. The computations are involved and must be completed immediately upon the entry on duty of a judge so as to assure the judge’s widow, in the event of his death, the protection afforded by the system. The employee, on a continuing basis, would be required to prepare replies to inquiries from the judges rela ting to the program and would process awards of 

annuities to widows of the judges.
70

The serv ices of a pa yr ol l clerk also ar e re qu ired to as sist in th e po sting of 

re ti re m ent reco rd ca rd s co ntro l, and pu rc ha se s of sa ving s bo nd s, pre par at io n of 

re po rt s on th e par tici pat io n of em pl oy ee s in th e life in su ra nc e and hea lt h be ne fits 

pr og ra m s, etc.

Attdi f Section (2 po sit ions).— An ac co un ting cle rk, GS- 6, an d a vo uc he r ex am ­

iner , G S-6 , ar e requ ired to h an dl e an increa se in th e w orkloa d of th e A ud it Section 

ex pe ct ed as a re su lt of th e ad dit io n of n ew ju dg es . The ac co un ting c ler k shall be 

assign ed w ith th e resp on sibi lit y of au dit in g th e quar te rl y re port s of officia l co urt 

re port er s and ac co un ts re nd er ed m onth ly by U.S . mar sh als, in cl ud in g vo uc he rs 

co ve ring fees an d all ow an ce s of ju ro rs , tr av el ex pe nses of ju dg es and su pp ort in g 

pe rson ne l, salarie s an d be ne fits, and item s of mi scell aneous ex pense.

T he vo uc he r ex am iner shall be as sig ne d th e resp on sibi lity of pre au di ting 

vo uc he rs su bm it te d by co nt ra ct ors , ch ec king as to co rrec tnes s of price an d qua nti ty , ap pro pri at io n, for m of vou ch er an d ce rti fic ation. The in cu m ben t shall be 

re qu ir ed to pe rform ot he r re la te d du ties .

Ilu dg et Office (two po sit ions).— On e of th e tw o em ploy ee s re qu es te d for th e 

B udget Office; na mely, th e ac co unts m ai nte nan ce cle rk, sh all be assig ned th e 

re sp on si bility of as sisting in th e m ai nte na nce of sp ec ial dis tr ib uti on led gers for 

pe rs on al service s wh ich refle ct th e roll an d ob lig atio ns for perm anent full-tim e, 

per m an en t par t- tim e, an d te m pora ry em pl oy m en t, an d th e co st of term in al 

leav e, w ithi n- gr ad e sa la ry ad van ce m en ts , etc. Thi s is a fu nd co nt ro l process 

ne ce ss ar y in e stab lish in g th e sta tu s of a llot m en ts f or p er so na l serv ices. On ly one 

em pl oy ee in th e office cu rr en tly is as sign ed w ith th is re sp on sibi lity an d th e worklo ad is su ch th a t th e incr ea se in th e vo lume of po stings re quir ed du e to th e 

cr ea tion of t h e new judg es hips cannot be ab so rb ed .

T he re ques t for a cl er k- st en og ra ph er is ba se d on an an ti cip ate d increa se in 

th e vo lu m e of co rrespo nd en ce re la ti ng to th e ac co un ting and fu nd co ntro l proc ­

ess es of th e Office. A gre at er num ber of re que st s for th e auth ori za tion of 

tr av el an d mi scell aneous ex pe ns es to be pai d by th e U.S . m ar sh al s, as well as 

pu rc has e or de rs and oth er obliga ting do cu m en ts wi ll be pr oc es se d and ac co un te d 

fo r by th is Office.

Rec ords Sec tion (one po sitio n).— A mail an d file cle rk, GS- 4, is re qu ired in th e 

Rec or ds Se cti on to pr ov id e sp ec ia l referenc e service an d to rece iv e an d fill requ es ts fo r reco rd s whic h ar e in th e cu st od y of th e adm in is tr ati ve office. Th e 

re quest fo r th e a dd itio na l em pl oy ee is in an tici pat io n of an i nc re as e in th e v olum e 

of p er so nn el notice s, tr av el a nd ex pe ns e a uth ori za tions a nd ge ne ra l corresp on de nc e.

Offset pr in ting p lan t.— In a nti cip ati on of an in cr ea se d de m an d fo r th e repr od uc ­

tion of m at er ia l an d re la te d act iv itie s, f und s ha ve b een re qu es te d fo r a n ad di tion al 

po sition (of fse t press op er at or ) fo r th e A dm in is trat iv e Office P ri nti ng P la nt.

Pe rso nn el Sectio n (2 po sit ions).— Pr ov ision ha s be en mad e fo r tw o ad di tion al 

po sition s fo r t he Pe rson ne l Se ction, a pe rson ne l a ss is ta nt an d a c lerk -ste no gr ap he r. 

I t is e xp ec te d th a t w ith t he ad dit io n of th e 73 new ju dg es and t heir staffs , th e vo lum e of in qu irie s, re qu es ts, and pe rs on ne l ac tion s will incr ea se al m ost 20 pe rc en t. 

A gre ate r num ber of e mploy ee s w ill be s ch ed ul ed for w ith in -g ra de s ala ry a dva nc em en ts and du e to tu rn ov er , th ere will be a gre at er num ber of resign atio ns and 

appoin tm ents . The ad ditio nal em pl oy ee s a re re qu ired to co pe w ith th e a ntc ip at ed 

in cr ea se in workloa d.

Division of proc edural stu die s an d sta tis tic s

I t is re que st ed th a t six ne w cle ric al po sition s be au th ori ze d fo r th e Di vis ion of 

Pro ce du ra l St ud ie s an d Sta tist ic s. T he ad di tional pe rson ne l ar e re qu ired for th e 

co ding a nd proc essin g o f a g re ate r vo lu m e of st ati st ic al an d ac co unt in g d ata w hic h 

will re su lt from th e ac tivi ties of th e ne w j ud ge s. Thr ee of th es e po sitio ns will be 

as sign ed to th e D ata Pr oc es sing U nit to ope ra te th e add itio nal re n ta l eq ui pm en t 

au th ori zed in a su pp le m en ta l ap pro pri ati on a ct fo r 1962. Tw o of th e po sitio ns 

ar e to be as sign ed to th e Civil an d Crim in al S ta tist ic al U nits to cope w ith in ­

crea se d w or kl oa ds ex pe cted as a re su lt of th e te rm in at io n of a gre at er nu m be r of 

cases. On e of th e em ploy ee s re quest ed will be re qu ired to as si st in th e pre par ation and ty pin g of st ati st ic al ta ble s an d ch ar ts to be includ ed in th e quar te rl y 

and annual re port s to th e Ju dic ia l Con ferenc e by t he D irec to r of t he Adm in istrati ve Office as re qu ired by law’.

Pe rso nn el benefits

In ad dit io n to the a m ount th a t has b een re qu es te d to c om pe ns at e th e add itio na l 

cle ric al em ploy ee s, it is est im ate d th a t $7,80 0 will be re qu ired fo r re la te d pe rsonn el be ne fit s— G ov er nm en t contr ib uti ons un de r th e Civil Se rvice R et irem en t 

Ac t an d sh al l be s ub je ct to w ithhol di ngs e qu al to 6H pe rc en t of th eir basic s al ar y. 

The G ov er nm en t is re qu ired to co n tr ib u te a m at ch in g am ount fo r de po sit to th e
71

cred it of the civil service retirem ent fund. Employees who do not waive life insurance coverage shall be subject to biweekly payroll deduction s at the rat e of 25 cents per thousand dollars of insurance, or $6.50 per thousand per year. The Government shares the cost of the insurance by con trib uting into the fund an amount equal to 50 p ercent of the sum con trib uted by the employees, or $3.25 

per thou sand dollars of insurance coverage. . . . It is expected th at 90 p ercent of the employees will participate in the Govern­ ment’s health benefits program. The Government’s contribution tow ard the cost of health insurance is expected to average a pproximately $60 per p articipant.

Expenses relating to new personnel In addition to the sum included for compensation and benefits, it is estim ated th at $13,600 will be required to cover the cost of communications, printing and reproduction, supplies, services, and the nonrecu rring expense of equipment and furn iture for new personnel. The budgeta ry requirem ents were established on a unit cost basis. The un it costs were derived from samplings of expenses cur­ rently being incurred by Adm inistrativ e Office personnel. The requirements are 

as follows:

Communications (including postage)----

Printing and rep rod uction_________ _

Other services______________________

Supplies and ma terials_______________

Equ ipm ent and furniture (nonrecurring)

$2, 700 

1, 000 

200 

1, 700 

8, 000

13, 600 To tal____________________________________________________

Increased subsistence (per diem) allowance and parking fees Pur suant to the provisions of section 6 of Public Law 87-139, approved August 14, 1961, officers and employees of the Adm inistrative Office were authorize d to claim, while in an official travel status, per diem in lieu of subsistence at .the rate of $16 and parking fees on and afte r September 25, 1961. The rate in effect prior to Septem ber 25, 1961, was $12 and no parking fees were allowable. The 10 cents mileage allowance for the use of priv ately owned autom obile was not increased, notwithstand ing the fact th at Public Law 87-139 authorized a maximum 

mileage allowance of 12 cents. Approximately 60 percen t of the actual obligations for travel incurred during fiscal year 1961 represented tran spo rtation costs and the balance (40 percent) paymen ts for subsistence. Based on the current allotment of $59,000 paymen ts for subsistence at the rat e of $12 per day would aggregate $23,600. As a result of the increase in the per diem allowance from $12 to $16, o r 33)& percent, paym ents for subsistence in fiscal yea r 1963 based on an equal volume of travel will approximate $31,200, an increase of $7,600 over 1962. It is expected 

th at payments for parking fees will be negligible.

Expenses relating to the revision of the general rules of practice and procedure in the

U.S. courts The Judicial Conference has been directed by the Congress (Public Law’ 85-513) to carry on a continuous stu dy of the operation and effect of the general rules of practice and procedure in use in the courts of the United States with a view’ to recommending changes and additions to the rules deemed desirable to prom ote simplicity in procedure, fairness in adm inistration, the just determination of litigation and the elimination of unjustifiable expense and delay. In response to this direction, the Judicial Conference authorized and the Chief Justice appointed a Standing Committee on Rules of Practice and Procedure and an advisory committee in each of five specialized fields, being civil, criminal, adm iralty, bankruptcy , and appellate rules, to study and recommend revision of the rules" if needed. The membership of these comm ittees varies from 9 to 15, and all are composed of judges, lawyers, and legal scholars w’ho are considered nationally recognized experts in the field of the ir committe e interest, and all are serving without compensation. The work in progress of these committees has included recommendations for the revision of the rules of cou rt which have been approved by the Suprem e Court and by the Congress, resulting in improved simplicity in procedure and the elimination of a large amount of unjustifiab le 

expense. The recommendations of t he Advisory Committee on Civil Rules approved by the Supreme Court and the Congress, and effective as of July 19, 1961, among oth er things revised the rule with respect to the procedure for sub stitutin g the successor in suits brough t aga inst Government officers in the ir official c apacities,
72

and because this revision followed so closely the change in national adm inistration with its accompanying change of officers the resulting savings to the litigants, 

and especially to the United States, is very large.

The recommendations of th e Advisory Committee on Admiralty Rules approved 

by the Supreme Court and the Congress, also effective as of July 19, 1961, among 

oth er things revised the rule with respect to the use of discovery procedures in 

admiralty cases. The provision for discovery procedures in the general admiralty 

rules was necessitated by a decision of the Supreme Court holding invalid the 

rules of local district courts authorizing discovery in adm iralty cases, and is 

credited w ith having saved litig ants, and the U.S. Government in particular, very 

large sums of money alrea dy invested in discovery proceedings in numerous 

adm iralty cases.

The recommendations of the Advisory Committee on Ban kruptcy Rules 

approved by the Supreme Court and the Congress, also effective as of July 19, 

1961, among other things revised the general orders and official forms in bankrup tcy to cure their invalidity in m any particu lars by bringing them into harmony 

with more recently enacted changes in the Bankruptcy Act, thu s simplifying 

proc edure and eliminating unjustifiable confusion and expense.

The progress of the other comm ittees is no less great, alth ough they have not 

as yet recommended revisions in the rules.

To meet the expenses relating to the revision of the general rules of practice 

and procedure in the U.S. courts, the annu al appropriation act for the fiscal 

year 1961 provided the sum of $79,540, under the heading “Salaries and expenses, 

Administrative Office of the U.S. Cou rts,” and this amoun t was augmented 

by $1,580 to cover the “pay costs” under the Federal Employees Salary Increase 

Act of 1960, thus bringing the to tal to $81,120. It is estimated th at an additional 

$45,000 will be required in the fiscal year 1963 for this work. The increase is 

needed for thre e reasons:

(1) The need for extensive revision of the rules of co urt in all five fields where 

the advisory committees are presently working is greater than was originally tho ught and the amount of work necessary to produce rules th at are simple and 

fair and th at will eliminate unjustifia ble expense and delay in litigation is considerably greater than was originally estim ated.

(2) It has become necessary for the Advisory Committee on Civil Rules to 

include in its inquiry as to the need for revision of the rules covering discovery 

procedures an extensive exam ination into the practical operation, effects, and 

costs of the present rules of discovery over the past 20 years.

(3) The Judicial Conference has authorized the Chief Justice to appoint a 

sixth Advisory Committee on Rules of Evidence to ascertain whether it is feasible 

and desirable to have rules of evidence for general and uniform application in 

the Federal trial courts, and, if so, to underta ke the drafting of such rules.

The additional amount by object classification follows:

Object: Amo unt Personnel compensation_____ ______ ________ ______________ $34, 000

Personnel benefits__________________________________________ 1, 000

Trav el and transporta tion of p ersons___________________________ 2, 000

Rent, communications, and utilitie s_________________________ 1, 400

Printing and reproduction_____________________________ 5,400

Other services_____________________________________________ 800

Supplies and materials________ 400

Total obligations_________________________________________ 45, 000

A D D IT IO N A L JU D G E S AND C L ER IC A L PO SIT IO N S

Mr. Rooney. This request for $1,609,000, as previously stated, 

is an increase of $167,250 over the amount appropriated to date for 

the current fiscal year. At pages 152 and 153 will be found a table 

of increases which make up the requested $167,250 additional. This 

request would entail the addition of 21 clerical positions to the payroll of the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts.

Have you a general statement with regards to this, Mr. Olney?

Mr. Olney. No, sir.
73

Mr. Rooney. If I understand this correctly, these requested 21 

additional clerical positions are justified on the basis of the omnibus 

judgeship bill.

Mr. Olney. Yes, sir.

Mr. Rooney. We added how many judges to the payroll under that 

omnibus judgeship bill?

Mr. Olney. You mean how many are now on the job?

Mr. Rooney. How many are now on the job and how many are 

expected to be appointed in the balance of the fiscal year or in the 

following fiscal year.

Mr. Olney. There are 59 on the job now, and in making our 

estimate as to how many we expect, what is that?

Mr. Anderson. There are 14 additional new judgeships to be filled.

Mr. Rooney. I am trying to get a relationship between the requested 21 additional clerical positions and the number of judges added to the payroll. On what number of additional judges is the 

requested 21 in clerical personnel asked for?

Mr. Airhart. Seventy-three.

PA R K IN G F E E S

Mr. Rooney. At page 152, item 4, we find an item, No. 4, to cover 

increased subsistence per diem allowance and parking fees authorized pursuant to the Travel Expense Act, as amended. How much is in 

here for parking fees?

Mr. Anderson. None, Mr. Rooney.

Mr. Rooney. Do you want to strike tha t language, then, from 

page 152 of the justifications?

Mr. Anderson. We can just as well. The $7,600 is computed to 

cover the per diem.

Mr. Rooney. And none of it is for parking fees?

Mr. Anderson. We will pay parking fees in fiscal year 1963.

Mr. Rooney. Then you do not need the $7,600 for subsistence or 

per diem allowance, do you?

Mr. Anderson. Yes, sir.

Mr. Airhart. That is to cover the increase from $12 to $16, Mr. 

Rooney.

Mr. Rooney. I understand that, b ut you also include parking fees. 

Now you say you will not need parking fees.

Mr. Airhart. We thought we did not need to ask for any money 

for it because we do not think it will amount to enough to ask.

Mr. Rooney. You will take it out of what?

Mr. Airhart. Out of the normal travel allowance money. If we 

changed the language, we might end up being prohibited from paying 

parking fees.

revision of general rules of practice and procedure

Mr. Rooney. At page 153, item 5, an additional sum is stated to 

be required for expenses relating to the revision of the “General Rules of Practice and Procedure in the U.S. Courts.” The requested additional amount is $45,000. How much was requested for this 

so-called rules group in fiscal year 1961?

Mr. Olney. $81,000-and-something.
Mr. Rooney. How much was allowed?

Mr. Olney. We were allowed $81,000.

Mr. Airhart. The request was for $79,540, which was raised to 

$81,120 by the Salary Increase Act. So we ended up getting in fiscal 

1961 the $79,540. I believe tha t is the exact figure, which was 

increased.

Mr. Rooney. Increased by $1,580, which was the pay raise?

Mr. Airhart. That is right.

obligation in excess of amount specified by congress

Mr. Rooney. That amount, $79,540, was specifically stated in the 

conference report as being allowed for this purpose?

Mr. Olney. Yes, sir.

Mr. Rooney. How much was obligated in fiscal year 1961?

Mr. Olney. $93,514.24 total.

Mr. Rooney. Where did you get the money?

Mr. Olney. We paid $81,119.47 from the appropriation for 

“Salaries and expenses, Administrative Office of the U.S. courts” ; 

we paid $3,944.15 from the appropriation for “Salaries of supporting 

personnel for the judiciary” ; and we paid $8,450.62 from the appropriation “Travel and miscellaneous expenses, U.S. courts.”

Mr. Rooney. Although the conference report on the 1961 bill 

specifically set the amount at $79,540, and even though you did not 

have the money in the overall appropriation item, “Administrative 

Office of the U.S. courts,” you dipped into these other funds, did 

you?

Mr. Olney. Surely.

Mr. Rooney. What authority in law do you have for doing that?

Mr. Olney. 1 think we have auth ority for it. The $81,000 figure, 

of course, is added to the appropriation of the Administrative Office 

for the additional costs of this rules work, but the rules work is done 

by the judiciary and by these committees. This is not a project of 

the Administrative Office. It is one where we administer-----

Mr. Rooney. But you must approve the allowance of the funds, is 

that not so?

Mr. Olney. Yes, that is right.

Mr. Rooney. Are we to understand from this it is your idea that 

with regard to the five items which make up “ Courts of appeals, 

district courts, and other judicial services,” perhaps with the exception 

of “Salaries of judges,” you are entitled to dip into any of those?

Mr. Olney. I think I am entitled to under the circumstances tha t 

we had in this year. I will be happy to explain what those were.

Mr. Rooney. You had better do some explaining, because right 

now the record stands at an amazing angle, I would say.

Mr. Olney. Tomorrow we will have two witnesses who will explain 

in more detail w hat the rules w ork is and how it is conducted. What 

happened this last year was tha t most of this money goes for the cost 

of committee meetings and for printing costs. The Advisory Committee on the Rules of Civil Procedure found tha t if they could get 

adopted a rule change which they were recommending, which has to 

do with the substitution of parties in suits brought against Government officials in their private capacity, if they could get tha t rule 

changed in time to make it effective, there would be very, very wide-
* 75

spread savings, both to litigants and particularly to the U.S. Government. These are cases where some Government official is sued in his 

official capacity and then he leaves office, and the problem comes up 

of what do you do with the suit as far as his successor is concerned. 

Under the rules as they formerly were, you had to go make a motion 

in every single instance where there was to he a substitution, and show 

tha t there was need for making the substitution, and then get an order. 

The rule change accomplishes these substitutions automatically, so the 

hundreds of motions in hundreds of actions all over the country would 

be eliminated.

To make tha t effective, however, the Advisory Committee, after 

they had concluded that this was a practical rules change, had to have 

their rule distributed widely and get the views of the bench and the 

bar all over the country before it was settled on, then submit it to the 

Judicial Conference of the United States and have it approved there. 

The Conference, in turn, had to submit it to the Supreme Court for 

adoption, and the Court had to take action adopting tha t rule before 

the Congress ended, because these rules do not become effective when 

the Supreme Court adopts them, but only after Congress has had at 

least 3 months, I think, to consider them. Then they become effective.

That was the situation with respect to this rule tha t relates to substitution of parties.

We had another situation in admiralty——■

Mr. Rooney. Will you relate this m atte r of substitution of parties 

moneywise to the $79,540 which was allowed by the Congress, the 

full amount requested?

P R IN T IN G CO ST S

Mr. Olney. Yes, I will. In May the committee meetings had 

been held. Those costs had all been incurred. What we were then 

up against were very heavy bills for printing. The reason they were 

so heavy was because of the emergency nature of them. We had to 

have the printing expedited, and it was a very large amount.

Mr. Rooney. How much was the printing bill?

Mr. Olney. The total for the year for printing and reproduction 

costs of duplicating by the Administrative Office was $7,066.82.

Mr. Rooney. Was this for the rules group?

Mr. Olney. That is correct.

Mr. Rooney. When was this printing ordered?

Mr. Airhart. Excuse me, Mr. Olney. You have two figures 

there—printing and reproduction of $9,688, and duplicating by the 

Administrative Office of $7,000.

Mr. Rooney. Mr. Ohiey should have given us the figure $9,688?

Mr. Airhart. Two figures; for printing and reproduction, $9,688.97, 

and for duplicating in our own office charged against the allotment, 

$7,066.82.

Mr. Rooney. What part of these figures applies to the rules group?

Mr. Olney. All of it.

Mr. Rooney. So we have $16,700 for printing and reproduction 

for the rules group; is tha t correct?

Mr. Olney. That is right.

Mr. Rooney. Can you tell us, with regard to the substitution of 

parties m atter you have referred to, when tha t printing was ordered?
76

Mr. Olney. There were several printings. There were these preliminary drafts which were first printed, and those were not on an 

expedited basis. Those are the ones that were sent to law schools-----

D IS T R IB U T IO N O F O V ERTIM E— P R IN T IN G M A TERIA L

Mr. Rooney. Which was the printing which was done by doubletime over in the Government Printing Office?

Mr. Olney. Tha t is the last one, the last part.

Mr. Rooney. How much was that?

Mr. Olney. I am sorry, we do not have that.

Mr. Rooney. After t ha t double-time printing, tha t very expensive 

overnight printing, I take it, the material was permitted to sit around 

for quite some time, was it not, before it was sent out?

Mr. Olney. No, sir.

Mr. Rooney. What was the elapsed time between the receipt of 

tha t high-cost printing and the time it was used?

Mr. Olney. I cannot tell you.

Mr. Rooney. Have you any idea?

Mr. Olney. No, sir, but it was not anything considerable.

Mr. Rooney. I understand that it was. It is my information that, 

after spending money for double-time printing, it was permitted to 

sit around for quite some time before it was sent out, and that there 

was not originally any basis for having it done other than in the 

ordinary way.

Mr. Olney. That is not correct.

Mr. Rooney. Will you tell me in what regard I am wrong?

Mr. Olney. It never sat around without reason for any considerable length of time. I will find out what the facts are on that.

Mr. Rooney. Would you let us have the dates with regard to the 

time the printing was ordered, the amount that it cost, and when 

the material was finally mailed out?

Mr. Airhart. Yes, sir.

Mr. Rooney. You never heard of this?

Mr. Olney. No, sir. And we will give the reason why, if it sat 

around.

Mr. Rooney. I do not think we need the reason. We have now 

gotten so far that the reason would be immaterial, in view of your 

answers.

Mr. Olney. There are time elements involved there.

Mr. Rooney. You c annot have your cake and eat it, too.

Mr. Olney. After the rules were adopted by the Supreme Court 

and we had these completed rules tha t had been printed, we could 

not distribute them then until the time had expired when they became 

effective.

Mr. Rooney. Why was it done at double time in the first place?

Mr. Olney. So we would not have to do it twice. We had to get 

the thing out in the first instance to get it to the Supreme Court so 

they could approve it and then get it and have it under consideration 

by the Congress. Then after the Congress gets it and it becomes 

effective, we have to have a very broad distribution of it and as soon 

as possible at that time, because the whole purpose of this is to notify 

the members of the bar that these proceedings are useless, that they 

do not have to do them, tha t this is automatic. Tha t is why the
printings on these are so large. Some of them—not this expedited 

one, but some of the distributions have been as many as 20,000 copies.

Mr. Rooney. You will furnish us with that information. 1 want 

to know exactly when the printing was ordered, how much it cost, when it was used and sent out, and what is still over there.

Mr. Olney. May I make this clear, too. Precisely this situation exists in connection with the admiralty rules. The emergency there was due to a different reason, but it deals with the same tiling.

Mr. Rooney. That is the second item tha t you referred to at the 

outset?

Mr. Olney. Yes.

Mr. Rooney. You also had very expensive last-tim e printing done 

with regard to that?

Mr. Olney. That is correct, for the same reason.

Mr. Rooney. Give us the same information with regard to tha t, 

the dates and the amounts, when it was ordered and when it was used.

Judge McGuire. Mr. Olney, do 1 understand Judge Prettyman 

and the Deputy Attorney General, Mr. White, will address themselves 

to these matters tomorrow?

Mr. Olney. They will.

Mr. Rooney. Of course, this is pertinent now, Judge McGuire, 

because it was approved by Mr. Olney.

Judge McGuire. I understand.

Mr. Rooney. What amount of time, in the ordinary course of things, would there be between a regular printing order down to the Government Printing Office and the method that was used here, the 

double time, overtime printing?

Mr. Olney. I cannot tell you offhand.

Mr. Rooney. Does anybody here know that?

Judge McGuire. I merely alluded to those two gentlemen to make 

the record clear this was a matter tha t did not come before the B udget 

Committee in the ordinary way.

Mr. Rooney. It had been my understanding tha t the Budget 

Committee had nothing at all to do with this.

Judge McGuire. Th at is correct.

Mr. Rooney. That this was Mr. Olney and the rules group.

Mr. Olney. That is true.

Mr. Rooney. It is also my understanding—and I hope I am wrong; 

I hope I have been misinformed—tha t it was a glaring waste of taxpayers’ money to have this done by an expensive, overtime operation rather than in the ordinary course of things. Can anybody tell us the difference in costs between the ordinary operation of having that 

printed for the court and an overtime operation?

Mr. Olney. We will do tha t together with the information you 

have asked for.

(The information supplied follows:)
I

Ite m

Pa m ph le t: Propose d Amen dm en ts to 

Rules of Practioe in Adm ira lty an d 

M ariti me Cas es (Ju dicial Conference pr intin g) .

Pa m ph le t: Amen dm en ts to Ru les of Pr actic e in Adm ira lty an d M aritime Cases (Su pre me Cou rt pr intin g) .

Pam ph le t: Pr op osed Am en dm en ts to Ru les of Civil Proc ed ure for U.S. 

D is tric t Cou rts (Jud icial Conference printin g).

Pa m ph le t: Amen dm en ts to Ru les of Civil Proc ed ure for U.S . D is tric t 

Cou rts (Su pre me Cou rt p rin tin g) .

To tal

Printing and distribution of admiralty and civil rules

Order Re gu lar cost Surch arg e for expedit ing

To tal

cost

De liv ery Distri bu tio n

Stock

re m ai ning Date Qu an­ ti ty Compo­ sition Ru nn ing Compo­ sition Run ning Date Qu an­ ti ty Da te Qua n­ ti ty

Ap r. 13,1961 1,000 $593.08 $153.46 $296.54 $64.02 $1.107.10 Ap r. 24,1961 1,000 Ap r. 24, 1961___ 200 800

........do............. 8,000 425.80 906.82 212. 90 116.63 1,662.15 Apr. 25,1961 8,000 M ay 2, 1961______ 6.000 1,800 After M ay 2, 19 61 .. 200

........do............. 1,000 183.56 78. 34 91.78 33.17 386. 85 ........do . ......... 1,000 Ap r. 25, 1961. _ . . . . 400 600

........d o ............ 8,000 134.62 671.93 67.31 112. 97 986.83 Apr. 28,1961 1,050 May 2, 1961______ 4,500 3,150 M ay 2,1961 6,950 After M ay 2, 1961.. 350

18,000 1,337.06 1,810. 55 668. 53 326. 79 4,142.93 18,000

- I00

N ot e. Delivery was effe cted by OPO in 11 to 19 d ay s un de r the surch arg e arrang em en t on a reg ular b asis an d deliv ery was ma de in 40 to 46 days. 8 8 By com parison the pa mph lets o n B an kr up tc y Ru les were o rde red pr in te d an d ru n

« « »
ALLO CATI ON OF FU N D S FO R STUD Y OF R U L E S OF PR ACTI CE 

AND PR O C ED U R E

Mr. Rooney. How much was requested for this rules group in 

fiscal year 1962, the current fiscal year?

Mr. Airhart. The same amount.

Mr. Olney. $81,000.

Mr. Rooney. Do you plan to stay within this amount?

Mr. Olney. We are going to have very, very serious difficulty 

doing it. We will do it, of course. We have to. This time we will not be confronted, as far as I know, with any such emergency as we have had before. But at the rate tha t the expenditures are going 

now, we will be way in the red.

Mr. Rooney. You are convincing the committee we made a mistake in giving you too much money in other categories so tha t you could dip into them for this purpose. Tha t is about what this amounts to as a practical matter. What amount are you requesting 

for fiscal 1963, the current, the instant budget?

Mr. Olney. You mean for-----

Mr. Rooney. For the rules group.

Mr. Airhart. $126,120.

Mr. Rooney. At page 17Id you set forth the increases only. 

Do you have a statement there with regard to the amounts which make up the $126,120? Can you read them into the record?

Mr. Airhart. The amount would come from a deduction of nonrecurring expenses-----

Mr. R ooney. May I see th at, please. Have you another one there?

Mr. Airhart. These are pages 152 and 153.

Mr. Rooney. Page 153 is no help to us.

Mr. Airhart. Are you speaking solely about the rules?

Mr. Rooney. 1 am speaking solely about the rules group. It does not appear in these justifications. All tha t appears is the requested increase of $45,000. You tell us tha t the amount for 1963 is $126,120. 

I am asking for a breakdown of th at figure.

Mr. Airhart. I am sorry.

Mr. Garabedian. I can call and get that breakdown if you will 

permit me to make a phone call. I do not have the figures with me.

Mr. Rooney. Please insert at this point in the record a statement 

indicating the breakdown of the different categories which make up 

the $126,120 requested for fiscal year 1963.

(The information requested follows:)

Allocation of fun ds for the study of rules o f practice and procedure

1962

allotm en t

Increa se

requ ested

1963

estim ate

Pe rsonnel oo ippc J'^^.ion ________________ . . . . . . _____ ______ $50,000 $34,000 $84,000

2,000 1,000 3,000 i ers uiu ic1 u c u c u w .. .. ------. . . — ------. . . . . . . Tr av el a nd tra ns po rta tio n of pe rso ns...... ............................. - ......... 16,000 2,000 18,000

I riinspurLdtiuii ui ----------- - ----. . . . . . Ren t, comm unica tio ns, an d ut ilitie s......... ...................................... 3,000 1,400 4,400

Pr in ting and r ep rod uctio n 1

............................................................... 8,000

1,000

5, 400 

SOO

13,400

1,800

CSirmliftO onH TT1QtPFlA1S __ ____ _________- ----- -------- 1,000 400 1,400

120 120

T ota l............................................................................................. 81,120 45,000 126,120

1 In cl ud es cos t of d up lic ating in ad m in is trat iv e office pr in ting p la nt . 

83455—62----- 6
80

Mr. R ooney. Ju dg e McGuire, do I un derst and th at the Bu dget 

Co mmittee of the Ju dic ial Conference has n ot considered this req uest 

of $126,120?

Judge M cGui re . We have no t considered anyth ing in rela tion to 

th e Rules Comm itte e.

Mr. R ooney. Could you tell me why?

Ju dg e M cG uire . I am now giving you merely my own conclusion 

bec aus e nothing specifica lly was said, bu t we felt this was a m at te r of 

an eme rgency na ture th at the Rules Co mm itte e was con fron ted wit h, 

an d therefor e, in the circum stance s, they would have to make the 

expla natio n them selves. For th at reason, Judg e Pr etty man ------

Mr. R ooney. How ab ou t the 1963 req uest?

efudge M cGuire . Th e 1963 req uest was pas sed------

Mr. R ooney. I can very well a pprec iate your w anting to s tay away 

from this.

Ju dg e McGuire. We wa nt to sta y away from it generally because 

rea lly, as a matter of f act, it is an extra ordinary item th at p resum ably 

is no t recu rring, alt hough it is recurrin g again this yea r. I think this 

would be the end of it. As a m atter of fact, since you put words in 

my mouth, I pref er to stay away from it.

Mr. R ooney. Fa ir enough.

IN C R E A SE IN A D M IN IS TR A TIV E O F F IC E CO ST S

Mr. Bow. I have some questio ns rel ating to page 152 end on from 

there, in rela tion ship to th e 21 positions for the A dm inistrative Office. 

I call vour attention to th e summ ary which was handed to us across 

th e tab le this mo rnin g, the “Increases in Ju diciary Appro priation 

Required to Im plem ent the Omnibu s Jud ges hip Legislation,” which 

shows a requ est for 1963 for the 21 positions of $110,000. The righ thand column on page 152 shows $118,000. I notice th at you have 

Ad mi nis tra tiv e Office to ta l estim ate of $125,000, and the n Adm inistrat iv e Office, nonre curring, $8,000. How do you explain that?

Mr. Anderson. Th e $110,000 on the sta temen t to which you refer 

is th e item of recurring costs, to which should be add ed $8,000 no nrec urrin g costs, Mr. Bow, which makes up the $118,000.

Mr. Bow . Looking at page 160, “G ran d to ta l, Ad minis trative 

Office, 21 position s, $100,47 9.”

Mr. Anderson. Tha t is the total annual salaries of the 21 position s from which we de du ct a lapse figure and arriv e at an est imate 

for pers onnel com pen sation of $96,600, to which is added , on the nex t 

pag e, $7,800 for related ben efits and $13,600 for to tal relate d expenses.

Mr. Bow . It says here $118,000.

Mr. Anderson. Yes, sir.

Mr. Bow . Are all the se positions rel ate d to the 73 new judges?

Mr. A nderson. Yes.

Mr. Bow. These are th e positions shown on pages 159 and 160, is 

th at correct?

Mr. Airh art. Tha t is correc t.

SPA CE AND C O M M U N IC A TIO N S A SSIS TA N T

Mr. Bow . Let us look at some of these. Let us take the first item , 

“Spa ce and com mu nic ations assis tan t, GS -7, at $5,36 6.” How 

man y people are in th at work rig ht now?
81

Mr. Anderson. Five .

Mr. Bow . W ha t is the to tal nu mber of judges th at they were ha ndling before you ha d this new bill?

Mr. Garabedian. In 1961, there were 394 judges , which included 

75 senior judges and 6 resigned ju dges.

Mr. Bow7

. W ha t does a space and com mu nicatio ns assis tan t do?

Mr. Anderson. He is a man who coo rdinates with the General 

Services Ad mi nis tration and the Post Office D ep artm en t, dep end ing on 

who is opera tin g the court building, in arr angin g for the tele pho ne 

service to be put in, p rovid ing addit ion al office space for th e new judges 

or for the p resent judg es, things of t hat nature.

Mr. Bow . W hat does “p .a .” mean?

Mr. Anderson. Pe r annu m.

Mr. Bow . These five th at you have in there presen tly could no t 

handle the new positions? Is th at righ t? You cou ld no t handle thi s 

in your existing g roup?

Mr. Olne y. Tha t is rig ht.

Mr. Bow’. You need o ne ma n ju st to tak e care of these new people. 

W ha t is he going to do a fter he g ets the spa ce located a nd the tele pho ne 

service in? W ha t will this fellow do?

Mr. Anderson. I would s ay he would con tinue to do the same thin g. 

Th is is no t a closing pro position . Le t me explain it this way: We 

have ha d the experience now of havin g 59 of these judges come on 

bo ard th at we have had to tak e care of. I t ha s been a terrific bu rden 

to tr y to ge t the m------

Mr. Bow . You have ha d 59 of the m come aboard with the 5 you 

ha d in there, and they hand led it, did they not?

Mr. Ande rson. I ca nn ot say it has been han dle d. W7e have fallen 

behin d in our service to the courts.

Mr. Bow . In wh at area h ave you fallen behind?

Mr. Ande rson. In business admi nis tra tio n, Mr. Bow, we hav e 

fallen beh ind in every are a. Mr. Bow . I am tal king now ab ou t spac e an d com municatio ns. 

How far beh ind are y ou in finding spac e for these judges ?

Mr. Anderson. Pe rhap s Mr. Olney can spe ak to th at.

Mr. Olney. Th is docume nt, incide ntally, is a repo rt which Mr. 

Collier, who is the Chief of the Division of Bus iness Ad ministration, 

su bm itt ed to me un de r da te of Decem ber 7, on the con ditions in his 

Div isio n, and under the Serv ice Section, which includes the Procu rem en t Un it, he repo rts th at the general cor respon den ce in this Un it is 2 w’eeks behind. Th e preparati on of purch ase ord ers is app rox i­ mate ly 2 mo nth s beh ind, exc ept for urgent req uir em ents, which we 

are end eavoring to keep curre nt. We are 2 w’eeks behind in the 

preparati on of req uis itio ns for the Federal Supply Service. Th e L aw Boo k U nit is 6 weeks beh ind, and the situati on is beco ming 

worse daily. Th e Print ing and Binding Unit repo rt th at we h ave becom e alm ost 

cu rre nt in this area. In the S upply R equis ition Un it, the people who process the requis itions clerically are ap prox im ate ly 2 weeks behind. Th is invo lves the typing of the req uisitio ns an d the prepara tio n of the invoices. However, we are ap proxim ate ly 8 weeks beh ind in effecting stoc kroom 

ship ments.
82

In the Space and Communications Unit we are now 1 week behind, 

but this situation is deteriorating daily.

Mr. Bow. That is the one where, although you have five people 

now, you need another one to take care of these judges?

Mr. Olney. That is right.

PR O C U R E M E N T U N IT

Mr. Bow. How many people do you have working as purchasing 

clerks?

Mr. Olney. In the Procurement Unit? How many people?

Mr. Anderson. There are five people in that particular unit, Mr. 

Bow.

Mr. Bow. How about the clerk-stenographers?

Mr. Anderson. The clerk-stenograplier would go also in the 

Purchasing Unit.

Mr. Bow. You have that as a separate item here. I want to know 

how many you have under this item of clerk-stenographer, GS-4, 

$4,040 per annum.

Mr. Anderson. You want to know how many clerk-stenographers 

we have?

Mr. Bow. Yes, presently, who make up that group to which you 

wish to add.

Mr. Anderson. Two.

Mr. Bow. You have two, and you want to add one. Right?

Mr. Anderson. Yes, sir. That is correct.

W A R E H O U SE M E N

Mr. Bow. Now the warehouseman, WB-9, $2.53 per hour. How 

many do you have in there?

Mr. Anderson. Eight, sir.

Mr. Bow. How many are you going to put on?

Mr. Anderson. Two.

Mr. Bow. What do these warehousemen do tha t is so necessary to 

these 71 new judges?

Mr. Anderson. We have a supply stockroom in the administrative 

office, Mr. Bow, which is used for this purpose. We buy stocks in 

large quantities, stock them in the administrative office, and then 

distribute them in smaller packages as the courts request the supplies.

Mr. Bow. These eight people you have in there now are not able 

to go in and pick up these stocks and ship them out?

Mr. Anderson. They are so far behind now, we are getting letters 

of complaints. For the first time in my experience in the administrative office, we are not filling the orders timely.

Mr. Bow. Is this just because of the new judges, or is it because 

of other reasons?

Mr. Airhart. Mr. Bow, may I say we realize we are going to have 

a peak workload here as the new judges come on, but what we are 

really asking for here is what we think is going to be the continuing 

need for coping with 73 judges and probably 400 people, roughly, in 

addition, because these are all going to be continuing.

Mr. Bow. Where do you keep these supplies?

Mr. Airhart. In our own stockroom.
83

Mr. Bow. What is your present inventory? Have you no inventory? Have you no value assessed for the supplies you have down 

there?

Mr. Airhart. Much of it is forms. We do not keep a running 

value inventory; no, sir.

Mr. Bow. You have no idea what it amounts to?

Mr. Airhart. We would be up here asking for more people if we 

did that.

R E T IR E M E N T , IN S U R A N C E , AN D PA Y RO LL SE C T IO N R E V IE W E R

Mr. Bow. How many reviewers do you have now?

Mr. Anderson. This is in the Retirement, Insurance, and Payroll 

Section. We have none. This is a new kind of position.

Mr. Bow. Is this fellow' going to review only the new 71 judges?

Mr. Anderson. No, sir.

Mr. Bow. This is a new position which has nothing to do with the 

71 new* judges, then?

Mr. Anderson. The 73 additional judgeships are the reason we 

need additional help in this area. The reviewer is the one who would 

be working with the judges’ previous service records to establish that 

record under the judicial survivors annuity system.

Mr. Bow. Actually, what you have here is this one person. You 

have nobody in there now, but because of the omnibus judges bill we 

are adding one additional person to the unit.

Mr. Anderson. That is correct.

Mr. Bow. This is to take care of the 394 who were there before 

as well as the 71 new ones.

Mr. Anderson. That is correct.

Mr. Bow. It is jus t a new position.

Mr. Anderson. That is correct.

PA Y RO LL CLER K

Mr. Bow. Howr

 about the payroll clerks?

Mr. Anderson. We have two of those at the present time.

Mr. Olney. Mr. Bow, could I give you-----

Mr. Bow. Let me finish on this first, please.

What will the payroll clerk do?

Mr. Anderson. The payroll clerks receive the payrolls from all 

over the country. As you know, we disburse through the U.S. 

marshals. They actually draw' the payroll checks. The payrolls are 

prepared in the courts and are submitted to the Administrative Office 

following payment. In the Administrative Office are maintained all 

of the payroll records.

Mr. Bow. How’ is this done? How do you handle it?

Mr. Anderson. The payroll actually comes to these two people 

now, and they prepare them for machine processing. We use punchcard machines to add them up.

Mr. Bow. Do they have machines there?

Mr. Anderson. No; we use the machines in our Procedural Studies 

Division.

Mr. Bow'. How far behind are your payroll clerks?

Mr. Anderson. Our payroll clerks are current for the reason th at— 

I have to say this—W -2’s are due by the end of this month. We
84

have been working night, day, and weekends. Tha t is the only 

reason they are current. I must say they are current.

Mr. Bow. Tha t is because of the W-2’s at the end of the year. 

How about the rest of the time?

Mr. Anderson. They were over a month behind, approaching W-2 

time.

Judge McGuire. They are still behind, are they not, Mr. Anderson? I know from the situation in our own court where employees 

pay their income tax on the 1st of January, they have not gotten the 

W- 2’s yet and will not get them, I am given to understand, until the 

31st of this month, which in some instances would result in a penalty 

to the individual taxpayer.

Mr. Anderson. I do n ot know about that. The law provides we 

may deliver W-2’s by Jan uary 31, and we are going to do it. This 

is the reason we pulled this one up, Mr. Bow. We had to do it.

Mr. Bow. How about the Audit Section? How many do you have 

in there now?

Mr. Anderson. We are talking about an accounting clerk. We 

now have seven such positions.

Mr. Bow. You are adding one?

Mr. Anderson. Yes, sir.

V O U C H ER E X A M IN E R S

Mr. Bow. How about voucher examiners?

Mr. Anderson. We have three voucher examiners.

Mr. Bow. This is to add one?

Mr. Anderson. Yes, sir.

Mr. Bow. To hear you people talk about how far behind you are 

and all the trouble you are having down there, I am amazed tha t 

you have been able to operate. You are running a pretty bad shop. 

We have not heard about this before.

Mr. Olney. You have not even heard about how bad off we really 

are. If you are interested in that, I can give you what is in this 

report.

Mr. Bow. I would like to complete my examination, and then I 

will be glad to hear it. It is amazing to me that, now tha t we have 

71 new judges in here, you find you have had all this trouble with your 

others. I do not remember hearing much about how far behind you 

were and the difficulties you were having.

Mr. Rooney. Mr. Bow, would you yield to me?

Mr. Bow. Yes, sir.

IN C R E A S E IN E X P E N S E S OF A D M IN IS TR A TIV E O F F IC E SIN C E 1953

Mr. Rooney. This might be the proper point to observe that it is 

amazing what might be wrong with this operation because, looking at 

page 384 of the committee print, it appears that the appropriations for 

the Administrative Office have practically tripled since 1953. You 

compare tha t with every other item in this bill that has to do with the 

administration of justice, and you will find that none of them is more 

than twfice as much, whether the FBI, the Immigration Service, the 

Customs Court, or any of the operations we have been talking about. 

None of them is more than twice as much in tha t period, but this 

Office has tripled.
85

BUD G ET O FFIC E

Mr. Bow. In the Budget Office, how many do you have doing the 

work for which you want to add a GS-7 accounts maintenance clerk?

Mr. Anderson. One.

Mr. Bow. You have one. You have been handling 394, and now 

you are in trouble.

Clerk-stenographer, Budget Office.

Mr. Anderson. We have ju st one.

Mr. Bow. Records Section, mail and file clerk. How many do you 

have in there?

Mr. Anderson. We have three mail and file clerks now.

Mr. Bow. Offset printing plant, offset press operator.

Mr. Anderson. We have four.

Mr. Bow. Personnel Section, personnel assistant.

Mr. Anderson. We have one such position now.

Mr. Bow. Clerk-stenographer.

Mr. Anderson. We have two.

Mr. Bow. Division of Procedural Studies and Statistics. This is 

something tha t is rather amazing, because with 73 new judges you 

have to beef this up. I thought this was all being done now.

Mr. Airhart. This is due in large pa rt to the fact tha t our budgeting and accounting records and payroll records, all of these things we 

have been talking a bout in the Business Administration Division, fall 

also on the Statistical Section of the Division because their machines 

are the ones that are used.

Mr. Bow. Let us find out how many statistical assistants (civil) 

you have now.

Mr. Anderson. One.

Mr. Bow. And criminal?

Mr. Anderson. One.

Mr. Bow. Coding clerk.

Mr. Anderson. One.

Mr. Bow. Clerk-statistical typist?

Mr. Anderson. We have no such position as that at the present 

time.

Mr. Bow. Tabulation machine operator?

Mr. Anderson. We have one. It does not bear exactly that title, 

but it is like that, electronic machine operator.

Mr. Bow. Punch operator?

Mr. Anderson. Five.

Mr. Bow. Except for the punch operator, you are doubling the size 

of your staff because of 71 new judges where you had 394 before. Is 

that right ?

Mr. Anderson. Yes, sir.

CO M M U N IC A TIO N S E X P E N S E

Mr. Bow. What is your present communications expense?

Mr. Anderson. Communications expense for the administrative 

office?

Mr. Garabedian. Our total expenditures for rent, communications, and utilities during 1961 were $66,000 of which roughly $36,000 

was for the rental of IBM equipment.
86

Mr. Bow. I am talking about the item under “Related expenses” 

on page 161, communications, which is increased by $2,700 because 

of the 71 new judges.

Mr. Garabedian. Our current communications are roughly $30,000.

Mr. Bow. $30,000.

Mr. Garabedian. That includes postage and fees paid to the Post 

Office, sir.

E Q U IP M E N T AN D FU R N IT U R E FO R N E W O F F IC E S

Mr. Bow. How many new offices are you setting up, complete new 

offices, physical, referring to equipment and furniture of $8,000? 

What will that include? Where is your list of furniture you are going 

to buy with the $8,000?

Mr. Anderson. The $8,000, Mr. Bow, is computed on the basis of 

an average of $850 per employee. Some areas will need a desk and a 

typewriter, and in some areas a desk and perhaps a dictating machine, 

and some areas nothing. For instance, for the warehouseman we 

will add nothing except his salary.

Mr. Bow. Actually, this is just an average th at you have picked up 

here. You do not know exactly what you will buy yet.

Mr. Anderson. I do not know the exact items we will buy; no, sir.

Mr. Bow. Tha t is all, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Rooney. Mr. Cederberg.

Mr. Cederberg. How much of an increase in personnel did you 

originally request in your budget before it was finalized?

Mr. Olney. Did we request of whom, sir? We made the same 

request for 21 people.

Mr. Cederberg. And 21 were approved?

Mr. Olney. Last year, none.

R E V IE W OF B U D G E T BY JU D IC IA L C O N FE R E N C E

Mr. Rooney. The Bureau of the Budget does not go into these 

requests for the judiciary. Whatever the judiciary formulates goes 

to the Bureau of the Budget and is automatically approved, being a 

separate branch of the Government.

Mr. Cederberg. Does not the judicial group have a budget 

committee which oversees this?

Judge McGuire. Yes; we do that. We went along with the recommendation made here because of the increase in the number of 

judges and the personnel that usually goes along with the increase in 

the number of judges. There is a large amount of work of related 

bu t necessary character from a functional point of view tha t goes 

along with these clerks. For tha t reason, we felt tha t the justification 

was a proper justification in the circumstances.

Let me give an example of some of the additional work required 

by judicial decisions. For example, our court of appeals here about 

a year ago required tha t all arraignments be typed. In other words, 

an individual appears before a court for arraignment on a criminal 

charge. You had to take down n ot only verbatim by the reporter 

what was said at that time, which ordinarily we would file in case 

there was any question raised, but then it had to be typed by the 

reporter. So the reporters naturally resented that type of thing. 

Finally, before the Judicial Conference, because Judge Connally raised
87

the question as to the circumstances in Texas and the difficulties he was having, you were enabled to take it down by a tape recording, which is perfectly proper, and sometimes much better than the verbatim report you take because you have the living voice of the participants. Nevertheless, in the circumstances the reporters have to certify, and they also have to file a rather complicated questionnaire as to their activities. So all of this business comes down to the information tha t is required 

with reference to the activity of the courts. I might say this. I served on a committee appointed by Judge 

Prettyman 2 or 3 years ago, and the ma tter is still pending before the 

Judicial Conference. They made no report this year. This business of cases pending actually is no reflection of the true business of the courts. For example, there was a directive by the Judicial Conference 

this year that all cases 3 years old or older must be tried. Then finally 

there was a qualification that all cases that were triable, 3 years old or 

older, must be tried. We had an audit made of our situation in the District of Columbia, and at a cui’sory glance it appeared that a substantial number of cases, 310 actually, were 3 years old or older and 

had not been tried, but when it came down to a formalization and down to detail, it developed t hat half of those cases had been settled by counsel but no praecipes were filed in the court, so therefore they were kept on the court docket as a pending case when the parties themselves had disposed of the matter. Then, in addition to tha t, we found other cases were pending because other cases in the co urt of appeals would be dispositive of the issues raised in those cases, and they were pending. Then we had cases involving foreign judgments, cases being tried in other jurisdictions which would resolve the controversy here. It all comes down to, the information tha t is required must be kept, and yet nevertheless the information itself as kept is not purely 

reflective of the business of the courts. That question was raised and the Judicial Conference is now stu dy­ ing what can be done about the statistics as they are given to you and as they are given to us. Nevertheless, as a consequence of tha t type of thing, it requires a great deal of clerical work. So, on that basis we concluded that the request made was not a request tha t was 

overly outsize. With reference to the Administrative Office generally and the con­ stant increase in positions from the standpoint of its budget and from the standpoint of its work, if the work could be cut down, so to speak, if these requirements were not made of the administrative work, then the Administrative Office, I would assume, would fall back into a situation where it would ask for so much and tha t would be the end. But where these demands are being made upon them and the pre­ sentations made before the Budget Committee and the Budget Com­ mittee recommends to the Conference and the Conference directs, there does not seem to be anything tha t can be done but ask. Whether they get it or not is something else again, but they should 

ask because the work is there.

Mr. Cederberg. The reason I asked the question, Judge, was 

that it appears tha t most of the work here is other than the type of 

work th at you describe in regard to the Texas case.
88

Judge McGuire. For the ordinary employee now we have insurance which we did not have some years ago. We have withholding. 

We have a lot of things in the nature of laminations tha t have been 

added functionally to the responsibility of the Administrative Office 

as a consequence of benefits conferred upon the individual. I do 

not know what the experience of other departments is. I am completely in the dark. I did know with reference to the Department of 

Justice 20 years ago, but things have changed and changed perceptibly.

The thing tha t bothers me—and I am quite certain it bothers 

Mr. Olney and everybody else here concerned—is that every year, 

through no fault of the Administrative Office, you have this constant 

accretional process going on of asking for more money. Money has 

to be asked. I am quite certain, as far as the budget committee is 

concerned, we have cut i t down where we think it should be cut down. 

We have been very peremptory about it. In certain instances we 

have presented the m atte r because we felt in the circumstances it was 

justified.

Mr. Cederberg. Th at answers my question. Then your budget 

group has reviewed the request of the Administrative Office for this 

additional personnel and you feel they are justified?

Judge McGuire. We have reviewed it in general. We have not 

gone down specifically in detail the way you gentlemen have. We are 

satisfied that in the circumstances, in such detail as we got into, it is 

a justified budget.

1 would like to come up here some time and be able to say, “Gentlemen, we are not asking for any more money,” and walk out. f hope 

that will be next year, if I live that long.

Mr. Rooney. That would be a great pleasure, Judge McGuire.

Judge McGuire. It will be a double pleasure for me, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Olney. Might I add something on this subject. I think this 

will show what has been happening over the years. Questions were 

raised here about our Retirement, Insurance and Payroll Section, for 

example. In 1940 when the Administrative Office started, when tha t 

section was first set up, all they had to do in connection with payroll 

deductions was to take the gross salary and the retirement, and come 

up with the net salary. That is all there was to it. Now what we 

have to do is to start with the gross salary. We have the retirement 

we have to figure; then the Federal tax, savings bonds, FICA, then 

State tax, life insurance, health benefits, and JSAF, and then you 

come down to a net salary.

Mr. Cederberg. Of course, in 1941 we did not have computers, 

either, to handle these things more quickly.

Mr. Olney. That is true.

Mr. Rooney. These same things apply to the FBI and the Immigration Service.

Mr. Olney. They do.

Mr. Rooney. And they have not had such a proportionate increase 

as has the Administrative Office. You see, in 1953 i t took $580,000 a 

year to run the Administrative Office. Now you are in here with a 

budget of $1,609,000.

Mr. Olney. But look at it in comparison with the number of people 

that our organization has to deal with, for example. Between 1940 

and 1962, the judiciary and its personnel, the personnel we have to 

deal with, increased a total of 3,198 positions, with increased work on 

every one of them. At the same time, the number of people in the
89

Administrative Office increased only 93. The ratio, which certainly is 

indicative of something, of the number of people tha t were in the judicial system was one in the Administrative Office as against 25.8 in the judicial branch in 1940. At the present time it would be one in the Administrative Office for 30 in the judicial branch, notwith­ standing all this increase in work which could not possibly be accomplished excepting for improvements in methods.

Mr. Rooney. I should like to point out, Mr. Olney, that while 

your administrative expenses have been increasing threefold, we find tha t under “Salaries and expenses, general administration,” for the 

entire Department of Justice, they have increased less than twofold. The same matters to which you have just referred also refer to the employees of the Department of Justice. There were many more employees, and they nave insurance, withholding statements, and 

so on.

Mr. Cederberg. That is all I have.

E X P E N S E S R E L A T E D TO A D D IT IO N A L PO SIT IO N S

Mr. Rooney. I have just one further question. At page 161 of 

these justifications, the items of $13,600 for related expenses and $7,800 for Government contributions are dependent upon the allowance of the 21 requested additional positions, are they?

Mr. Anderson. In full; yes, sir.

Mr. Rooney. Tha t is all. Thank you.

Salaries of Referees

Object classification

[In thousands of dollars]

1961 actual 1962 estim ate 1963 estimate

11 Personnel compensation: Per manen t p os itio ns .__ ___________________ .. 1,599

363

1,845 

363

2,278

285 Positions other th an perm anent__________ _______ .

Tota l, personnel compensation............... .................... 1,962

145

2,208

162

2,562

188 12 Personnel benefits______ __________________________

Total o bligat io ns. ___ ___ _________ ____________ 2,107 2,370 2,750

Personnel sum mar y

1961 actual 1962 estimate 1963 estimate

Total number of perm anent po sition s_ __________________ 112 129 160

Full-time equivalent of other p os itio ns ._____ ___________ 33 32 24

Average num ber of all employees__ ___________________ 142 158 181

Nu mb er of employees at end of year . ______ __ _____ __ 178 190 205

Program and financing

[In thousand s of dollars]

1961 actu al 1962 estim ate1963 estimate

Program by activities: Salaries and benefits (total obligations). Financing: Unobligated balance laps ing................................. —

New obligational autho rity (appropriation) ....................

2,107

18

2,125

2,370

2,370

2,750

2,750
90

Mr. Rooney. The next item is entitled “Salaries of referees.” It 

is to be found at page 387 of the committee print and beginning at 

page 173 of the justifications. We shall insert at this point in the 

record pages 173 through 183 of these justifications.

(The pages referred to follow:)

Statement relating app ropriation estimate to current appropr iatio n

1962 ap pr op ria tio n In an nu al act____ _____________ ____ ______ ____ ______________________ $2,370,000

Bas e for 1963.......................................................................................................................................... 2,370,000

N et difference , 1963 over 1962:

Req ui remen ts

1962 appr opr ia te d

1963

es tim ate

Difference, 

increase 

(+ ) or de ­

crease (—)

Pe rso nnel comp ensat ion a nd b en efits ....................... .. $2,370,000 $2,750,000 +$380,000

Tot al esti mate for 1963............................ ..................... ................................................ .................... 2,750,000

Stateme nt showing analysis by object

Object 1962 estim ate 1963 estima te

Increa se (+ ) 

or

decrease (—)

11 Perso nnel co mp ensat ion _______________________________ $2.208,000 

162,000

$2,562, 500 

187,500

+$354,500 

12 Pe rso nnel benefits............................ ... +25,500

Tot al o bligations................................... ............................. ....... 2,370,000 2,750,000 +380,000

Su mm ary of increased requirements for 1963

Am oun t

Na tur e of expense (or savings):

1. 15 additional full-time referees, 10 at $15,000 and 5 

at $12,500:

Com pensation ___________________________ $212, 500

Benefits________________________________ 15, 500

2. Conversion of 16 par t-time referees to full-time

stat us :

Compensation ___________________________ 100, 000

Benefits________________________________ 7, 000

------------ 107,000

3. Salary adjustm ents for referees who are required

to devote a greater amoun t of time to the work 

of the courts:

Compensation____________________________ 42, 000

Benefits_________________________________ 3, 000

------------- 45, 000

Increase, 1963 over 1962__________________________ 380, 000

JUST IFICATION

Lang uage changes

None.

Objectives

The district courts of the United States are con stituted cou rts of b ank ruptcy, 

vested with original jurisd iction at law and in equity in proceedings brought under 

the b ankru ptc y statute s. This jurisdiction primarily is exercised through referees 

app ointed by the several dis trict courts. Their compensation and benefits are
91

paid from this a ppropriation, which is derived from a special fund in the Treasury 

to which are deposited pay ments of fees and charges by parties to th e proceedings. 

No appropriation from the general fund of the Tre asury is required.

References to basic statutor y authorities are contained in section O of the 

“D igest of Appropriations, the judicia ry,” on file with the Bureau of th e Budget 

and the Appropriations Committees of t he Congress.

General justifications

The number of bankrup tcy cases filed in fiscal year 1961 reached ano ther 

alltime high of 146,643. The number of cases filed, the numerical increase, and 

the rat e of increase from 1956 through 1961 follows:

Fis ca l ye ar Cas es filed

N u m b e r

In cr ea se

A n n u al C u m u la ti v e

10.56 _______ _____________ 62,0 86

Perc ent Perc ent

1957. .............. - ____ ____________________________ 73, 761 11,6 75 18.8 18.8

1958_________ _________________________________ 91,668 17,9 07 24.3 47 .6

1959________ __________________________________ 100,672 9,004 9.8 62 .2

I9 60 .------------------------ --------------------------------------- 110,034 9.3 62 9.3 77 .2

1961...................................................................................... 146,643 36,60 9 33.3 136.2

On July 1, 1960, there were 94,990 cases pending. During the year, 117,943 

cases were closed as compare d with 146,643 cases filed, resulting in an increase in 

the pending c:iseload of 28,700 cases or 30.2 percent. This compares with an 

increase in the pending caseload in 1960 of 10,719 cases or 12.7 perce nt. The 

num ber pending on Jun e 30, 1961, was 123,690, a new alltime high. The num ber 

closed in 1961 (117,943) also was a new high. Exhibits J and K show the n umber 

of ban kru ptcy cases filed and pending, fiscal years 1905-61 and the num ber and 

ratio of business to nonbusiness bankruptcies commenced, fiscal years 1940-61.

Of the total cases filed in 1961, 89.6 percent were nonbusiness bankruptcies 

(wage earners) and 10.4 perc ent were business bankruptcies (which includes 

merchan ts, man ufacturers, others in business, farmers, and the professional 

groups). The rat e of increase in the nonbusiness group is slightly higher than 

the business ban kruptcies; however, there has been an alarming rate of increase 

in both categories. The following table shows th e volume and rati o (percentage) 

of business to nonbusiness filings for the p ast 10 years.

Fi sc al ye ar N on bu si ­

ness

P erc en t of 

to ta l

B us in es s P er ce nt of 

to ta l

T o ta l

fil ings

1052 28,331 81 .2 6,542 18.8 34,873

1053 33,3 15 83. 1 6,7 72 16.9 40,0 87 

.53,136 

59,404 

62,0 86 

73,761 

91,6 68

1054 44,2 48 83 .3 8,888 16.7

1055 50,2 19 84.5 9,18 5 15.5

1056 52,6 08 84 .8 9,47 8 15.2

1057 63,6 17 86.3 10, 144 13.7

1058 80,264 87 .6 11,404 12.4

1959 88,9 43 88 .3 11,729 11.7 100,672

* 10 60 97,7 50 88.8 12,284 11.2 110,034

1961 . 131,402 89 .6 15,241 10.4 146,643

It is estim ated th at the number of ban kruptcy cases to be filed in 1962 will 

approac h 170,000, and th at in 1963 the total filings will be in the vicin ity of 

185,000, or 40,000 in excess of the number of cases filed in 1961. The average 

caseload per referee has increased 322 perc ent over the past 10 years from 314 in 

1952 to 1,011 in 1961. In 1952 a referee was required to handle on the average 

of 59 business bankruptcies and 255 nonbusiness bankruptcies whereas in 1961, 

the average caseload of a referee included 105 business bankruptcies and 906 

nonbusiness bankruptcies. Assuming the 170,000 filings forecast for 1962 ma ­

terializes, the caseload per referee would increase to approxim ately 1,056. The 

additional full-time referee positions included herein aud the conversion of some 

part-time referees to a full-time status will, on the basis of 185,000 cases forecast 

for fiscal year 1963, bring the average caseload of referees down slightly to 1,005 

(100 business bankruptcies and 905 nonbusiness bankruptcies). The following
92

table shows the total filings, the number of authorized referee positions, and the 

average caseload for the past 10 years, including estim ates for the current and 

budge t years:

Fis ca l ye ar T o ta l

filing s

N u m b e r of 

auth ori zed 

referees 

po si tion s 1

A ve ra ge

ca se lo ad

1952 . ___________________________________________ _________ 34,873 111 314

1953 ____________________ _____ ________ ____________________ 40,0 87 109 368

1954 ___________________________ _________________________ 53,1 36 110 483

1955 _________________________________________________ 59,404 117 508

1956 _____ __________ _____ ________________________________ 62,0 86 121 513

1957 . . — _______________________________________ 73, 761 126 585

1958 ____________________________________________ ____ 91,6 68 134 684

1959 _____ _____ __________ _____ ____________ ______ 100,672 137 735

I960 _________________________________________________ 110,034 141 780

1961 _____ ____________________________________________ 146,643 145 1,011

1962 ______________ _________________________ _____ _________ 2 170,000 161 1,056

19 63. _______ ___________ _____ ___________ ____________ 2 185,000 184 1,00 5

1

 F u ll -t im e e quiv al en t.

2 E sti m ate d . A

At the beginning of fiscal year 1962 the balance of the “Referees salary and 

expense fund” was ap proximately $8,425,000. It is estimated t ha t receipts to be 

deposited into the fund during fiscal year 1962 will aggregate $7,540,000, bringing 

the total available for app ropriat ion to $15,965,000. Deductin g the appropriations of $2,370,000 for “Salaries of referees” and $4,210,000 for “Expenses of 

referees,” a balance of $9,385,000 would remain in th e fund at the end of the year.

Taking into account the proposed supplemental for 1962 of $190,000 for “Expenses 

of referees,” the balance in the fund at the beginning of fiscal year 1963 will be 

$9,195,000. The supp leme ntal estima te is, of course, tentative and subject to 

revision.

It is estimated th at during fiscal year 1963 receipts to be deposited into the 

fund will aggregate $8,065,000. Deducting the appropriation estim ates for 

fiscal year 1963 of $2,750,000 for salaries of referees and $5,290,000 for expenses 

of referees there would be a net gain (surplus) of $25,000. At the end of fiscal 

year 1963 the surplus would exceed $9.2 million. This surplus cann ot be used 

for any purpose other tha n the s upport of th e ban kruptcy courts, and, therefore, 

it is app are nt that parties to the proceedings are now paying for a service which 

the ban kruptcy courts canno t possibly render w ith the limited number of referees 

and clerical personnel th at are currently authorized.

Detailed justification

The appropriation request for 1963 for “Salaries of referees,” is $2,750,000, or 

$380,000 in excess of the obligational authority granted for fiscal year 1962. The 

item s of increase are explained as follows:

Additional full-time referees

It is requested that funds be provided for the employment of 15 additional fulltime referees, 10 at th e salary of $15,000 per an num and 5 at $12,500 per annum.

The amount th at will be required to establish these p ositions is $228,000, of which 

$212,500 is for personnel compensation and $15,500 for related benefits, Government contributions to the civil service retir eme nt fund, for group life insurance, 

and hea lth benefits.

In the past, much of the increased work has been absorbed by the gradual 

change of pa rt-time referee positions to a full-time status and by increasing salaries *

to compensate referees for the devotion of a greater portion of their time to the

work of the courts. In many instances, however, it is no longer possible to make 

such changes and new' positions must be created. Provisions for clerical staffs, 

office space, furniture, and equipm ent required by the new’ referees are included 

und er the appropriation “E xpenses of referees.”

Conversion of part-time referee positions to full-time

The additional sum of $107,000 ($100,000 for compensation and $7,000 for 

related benefits) is requested to permit the conversion of 16 part-time positions 

to full-time. Referees who form erly were designated to serve in a part-tim e 

capacity are currently handling caseloads comparable to th at of full-time referees 

and, therefore, it is proposed th at the y be so designated and compensated.
93

Salary adjustments

It is requested th at the additional sum of $45,000 be provided for the adjus tment of the salaries of referees in ban kru ptcy who, due to increased caseloads, 

are required to devote a gre ater amount of time to the work of t he courts. The 

estimate includes $42,000 for personnel compensation and $3,000 for related 

benefits.

IN C R E A S E S R E Q U E ST E D FO R 1963

M r. Rooney. These pag es i ndica te th at t he req ue st is in the am ou nt 

of $2,750,000, which wou ld be an increase of $380,000 over the a mou nt 

approp ria ted for salaries of referees in the cu rre nt fiscal yea r. The 

increases are shown at pag e 175.

At pages 177 an d 178 we find a s tate men t with rega rd to the nu mb er 

of cases filed over fiscal years 1956 throug h 1961, a nd also a s tate men t 

at page 178 with reg ard to the volu me and ratio of business to nonbusines s ba nk ruptcy filings in the pas t 10 yea rs.

It appears from these pages th at you are req uesting 15 addition al 

full-time referees, 10 at $15,000 a year and 5 at $12,500 a ye ar; th at 

you wa nt to convert 16 pa rt- tim e referees to full-time s tatu s, and th at 

$45,000 is req ueste d for salar y ad justmen ts for refe rees who are re ­

qui red to dev ote a gr ea ter am ount of tim e to the work of the courts. 

Is th at correct?

Mr. Olne y. That is correct.

Mr. R ooney. W ha t was the bal anc e in the ref ere es’ fund as of 

Ju ne 30, 1961?

Mr. J ackson. $8,425,000, Mr. Ch airma n.

Mr. R ooney. I mi gh t s ay a t this point t hat th e c om mi ttee sincerely 

reg rets the ina bil ity of Mr. Covey to be pre sen t. We un de rst an d he 

is ill.

Mr. J ackson. That is rig ht.

Mr. R ooney. And we would ask you to con vey to him our bes t 

wishes for a speedy and com plete recovery .

W ha t was the answer to the previous que stio n?

Mr. J ackson. $8,425,000 as of J un e 30, 1961.

Mr. R ooney. W ha t is th e estim ate for Ju ne 30, 1962?

Mr. J ackson. We estim ate $9,385,000 as of th at date.

Mr. R ooney. And wha t is estim ate for the end of fiscal 1963, 

Ju ne 30, 1963?

Mr. Garabedian. Ou r estim ate is $9,410,000.

Mr. R ooney. Does this fun d now pa y for all the expenses of the 

ba nk ru pt cy s ystem acc ord ing to the act ?

Mr. J ackson. Yes, sir.

Mr. R ooney. And how man y referees do you presen tly have?

Mr. J ackson. At the present time we have 129 full-ti me and 64 

pa rt- tim e referees.

Mr. R ooney. And the to tal salar y for those 129 plus 64 referees, 

do you have that handy?

Mr. J ackson. Th e obligation as of the end of Decemb er, I can 

give you and the unobligated b alan ce. The obligation as of D ece mber 

31, was $1,150,987. Th e unobliga ted balanc e was $1,219,013, which 

will carry us to the end of the fiscal year.

Mr. R ooney. At page 175 of the j ust ificatio ns wh at do you mean 

by —

Salary adju stments for referees who are required to devote a greater amount 

of tim e to the work of the courts.
94

Mr. J ackson. Tha t is primarily for increases in salaries of parttime referees who are also practicing lawyers. When the volume of 

business increases to the point that the referees must give less time to 

their law practice and more time to the bankruptcy work, we consider 

a salary adjustment. These adjustments are usually made in increments of $500 to $1,000 for part-time referees.

Mr. Rooney. Mr. Magnuson?

Mr. Magnuson. Why the difference between $15,000 and $12,500?

Mr. J ackson. That depends a great deal on the territory to be 

served by the referee, its extent, and the character and type of business 

that conies before him. It is a matter of judgment. It is one of the 

jobs the B ankruptcy Division does in analyzing the work and recommending to the Judicial Conference the salary to be fixed.

Mr. Magnuson. That is all.

Mr. Rooney. Mr. Marshall?

REA SO N FO R IN C R E A S E IN B A N K RU PTCY CA SE S

Mr. Marshall. I have been wondering why the increase in bankruptcy cases. I notice in the justifications there is a chart, exhibit 

J, which shows a tremendous increase starting in the year 1953 up 

to the present time. What is the reason for that increase in the 

bankruptcy cases?

Mr. J ackson. Sir, I do not believe I can tell you the reason for it. 

The only thing I can tell you is the character and kind of cases coming 

before the courts. The majority are filed by salaried people. The 

proportion runs now about 90 percent employees or salaried people 

and 10 percent business firms. I think Mr. Covey would say, if he 

were here, th at primarily the reason for the salaried person going into 

bankruptcy is overextended credit.

Mr. Marshall. Has there been a greater increase in some sections 

as compared to others?

Mr. J ackson. Yes, sir. The increase in the sixth and ninth circuits 

has been the greatest.

Mr. Rooney. For the record, the ninth circuit is where?

Mr. J ackson. The west coast.

Mr. Marshall. Has there been any change in court procedures in 

those areas tha t would contrib ute to the increase in bankruptcy cases?

Mr. J ackson. Not tha t I know of, sir.

Mr. Marshall. Do you know whether or not such things as installment buying may have contributed to the increase in bankruptcy 

cases?

Mr. J ackson. Sir, tha t is what I meant by overextended credit.

Mr. Marshall. And is there some indication tha t there might be 

more installment purchasing in some parts of the country than in 

others?

Mr. J ackson. No, sir.

Mr. Marshall. I think that is all I have, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Rooney. Mr. Bow?
95

A N T IC IP A T E D IN C R E A SE IN B A N K RU PTCY FIL IN G S

Mr. Bow. I note th at you an tic ipa te in 1963 a considerable increase in your filings, in 1962 you an tic ipated 170,000 and in 1963 you estim ate your total filings will be in the vic ini ty ol 185,000 or abo ut 

40,000 in excess of the n um ber filed in 1961. Is th at c orrect ?

Mr. J ackson. That is correct, sir. Mr. Bow. Mr. Marsh all has sug gested the increase from 1953. I sug ges t th at the filings for 1953 throu gh 1960 were about 590,000. Now yo u are an tic ipating 3 ye ars a fte r 1960, l or 1961, 1962, and 1963, 

a total of 400,000 cases. Is that correct?

Mr. J ackson. Tha t is corr ect.

Mr. Bow. Tha t is all.

Mr. Rooney. Mr. Ceder ber g?

Mr. Cede rbe rg. I would like to ask one question : How close to the estim ate s have the actual filings been in the past?

Mr. J ackson. Mr. Co vey has a repu tatio n for being uncannily 

correct in t ha t. I think he missed it in 1961 with his original estima te.

Mr. Cede rbe rg. W hat was his original est im ate ?

Mr. J ackson. I think 130,000 and it tur ned out to be 146,000.

Mr. Cede rbe rg. But gen erally he has been within 5 percen t, 

would you say?

Mr. J ackson. 1 cou ld not spe ak to th at . I have nev er checked 

th at .

Mr. Airha rt. Ge neral ly he lias been within 1,000 or 2,000 cases.

Mr. Cederber g. Tha t is all.

E xp enses of R efe rees

Object classification

[I n th o u san d s o f do lla rs ]

u

12

21

22

23

24

25

26 

31

P er so nnel com pen sa tion :

P erm an en t posi tions_______ ____

Pos itio ns o th er th a n p e rm a n e n t. . 

O th er p er so nn el c o m p e n sa ti o n .. .

T o ta l per so nn el com pen sa ti on..

Per so nnel b en efits _____________ ____

T ra v el an d t ra n sp o rt ati o n of p er so ns.

T ra n sp o rt ati o n of t h in g s--------. . . . . . .

R en t, co m m uni ca tion s, an d u ti li ti e s .

P rin ti n g a n d r e p r o d u c tio n .. .. .............

O th er se rv ic es ____ _________________

S upplies an d m ate ri als ---------------------

E q u ip m e n t_________________________

T o ta l obligat io ns____ _____________

1961 ac tu al 1962 est im ate 1963 es ti m ate

2,4 30 2,899 3,5 49

300 235 235

11 1 1

2,7 42 3,135 3,785

193 230 281

85 88 120

8 7 10

333 372 587

27 33 48

17 18 19

104 88 102

123 241 338

3,633 4,210 5,290

Personnel summary

1961 a ctu al 1962 es ti m ate 1963 es ti m ate

To tal nu m be r of pe rm an en t po sitio ns ______________________ 565 610 730

Fu ll- tim e e qu iv al en t of other p ositions _ _________________ 75 60 60

Average nu m be r of all e mp loy ees _ ________ - _______ 595 663 780

Nj’m ub er of em ployees a t end of y ear _______ -__ - ____ __ 676 698 815

83455— 62------1
96

Program and financing

[In thou sa nd s o f dollars)

1961 a ctu al 1962 es tim ate 1963 es tim ate

Pr og ram by acti vitie s:

C le rk hire an d miscellaneous exp enses of referees (to tal 

ob lig ations )........... . ................. 3,633

18

Fina nc ing: 4,210 5,290

Uno bligated balanc e laps in g, ............. ..

New obli gatio nal a ut ho rity (a pp ro pr iatio n) ...... ................ 3,651 4,210 5,290

Mr. R ooney. The nex t item is entitled “Expenses of Referee s” 

and it appe ars at page 389 ol the comm itte e print an d beginning at 

page 184 of the justificatio ns.

We shall insert at this point in the reco rd pages 184 through 205 

of the justifications.

(The pages follow:)

Statement relating app ropriation estimates to current appropr iation

1962 ap pr op riat io n in an nu al a ct............ ............ ................ . ............... ............

Base for 1903.______ ______________________ ________ ___________ ____ ZZZZZZZZZ Net differe nce, 1963 over 1962:

$4,210,000 

4,210,000

Req uiremen ts

1962 appropriated

1963

es tim ate

Diff erence, 

increase 

(+ ) or d ecrease (—)

Clerk hir e co mp ensat ion an d benef its. ........................ $3,364,500 

845,500

$4,066,000

1,224,000

+$701,500 

+378,500 Misc ellaneou s e xpe nse s. .. ............. . ................

T o ta l. .................. . .............................. ............... 4,210,000 5,290,000 + 1,080,000 +1,080,000

Tot al estim ate for 1963_________________________________________ ____ ______ ____ _ 5, 290,000

Statement showing analysis by object

Object 1962 est im ate 1963 es tim ate

Increase (+ ) 

or

decrease (—)

11 Pe rson ne l c om pe ns ation____ ______________ $3,135,000

229,500

87.500 

7.000

372,000

33,000

17.500

87.500 

241,000

$3,785,000

281,000

119.500 

10,000

587,000

48,000

19,000

102.500 

338.000

+$650,000 

+51,500 

+32,000 

+3, 000 

+215,000 

+ 15,000 

+ 1,500 

+ 15,000 

+97,000

12 Pe rson ne l b en efits ________________________

21 Tra ve l a nd tra ns po rta tio n of pe rson s_______

22 Tra ns po rtat io n of th ings ________ _______

23 Ren t, co mm unicati ons, an d ut ilitie s___

24 Pr in ting and r epro ducti on..,.............

25 Other se rvice s___________ _____ ____

26 Su pplie s a nd m aterials..................

31 E quip m en t________ _____ ________

To ta l ob ligations____ _____ _____ ________ _______ 4,210,000 5,290.000 + 1,080,000
Summar y of increased requirements for 1968

Na tur e of expense (or savin gs): ytmounf

1. Deduction for nonrecu rring expenses auth orized for 1962-----— $91, 500

2. Provision for within-grade salary advancements:

Com pensation----------------------- ------------------------------- 66, 500

Benefits_________________________________________ 4, 500

Su btotal_______________________________________ 71, 000

3. Additional clerical personnel (120 positions) requ ired to 

handle increased caseload:

Compensation____________________________________ 583, 500

Benefits_________________________________________ 47, 000

Furniture and equipment (nonrec urrin g)_____________ 66, 000

Su btotal_______________________________________ 696, 500

4. Expenses rela ting to additional referees requested under the 

item “salaries of referees” :

Tra vel___________________________________________ 12, 000

Tra nsp ortation of t hin gs----------------------------------------- 3, 000

Com munications---------------------------------------------------- 7, 500

Rental of office space ______________________________ 60, 000

Prin ting and reprod uction__________________________ 5, 000

Other services____________________________________ 1, 500

Supplies and ma terials-------------------------------------------- 15, 000

Fur niture and equipment, including library facilities

(nonrec urrin g)__________________________________ 105, 000

Su btotal_____________________________________ 209, 000

5. To cover increased subsistence (per diem) allowance and

parking fees authorized pur suant to the Tra vel Expense

Act, as amended____________________________________ 10, 000

6. Trav el expenses of new referees incid ent to atte ndance at

meetings concerning ban kruptcy adm inistra tion practices 

and procedures, when incurred on written authorization of 

the Director of the Adm inistrativ e Office----------------------- 10, 000

7. Increase in postage and fees based on anticip ated ca se load .. 87, 500

8. Rental of office space for referees expected to be displaced by

new judges_________________________________________ 60, 000

9. Prin ting requiremen ts for stan dardizing dockets, filing and

repo rting procedures in ban kruptcy cases---------------------- 10, 000

10. Fur niture and furnishings required incident to the occupancy 

of new buildings scheduled to be completed during fiscal 

year 1963 or within 90 days therea fter:

Hartford, Conn___________________________________ 4, 506

Memphis, Te nn ----------------------------------------------------- 6,10 0

San Francisco, Calif----------------------------------------------- 2, 452

Thomasville, G a__________________________________ 539

Montpelier, Vt___________________________________ 3, 431

Bryson City, N.C_________________________________ 539

Su bto tal_______________________________________ 17, 500

Net increase, 1963 over 1962--------------------------------- 1, 080, 000

JUSTIF ICATIO N

Language changes

None.

Objectives

Office and other expenses of referees, including compensation and benefits of 

clerical employees, are payable upon authorization of the Director of th e Administrative Office of th e U.S*. Cou rts. This appropriation is derived from a special 

fund in the Trea sury to which are deposited pay ments of fees and charges by
parties to the proceedings. No appropriation from the general fund of the 

Tre asu ry is required. Reference to basic sta tutory author itie s is contained in 

section P of the Digest of Appropriations, The Judiciary, on file with the Bureau 

of the Budget and the Appropriations Comm ittees of the Congress.

General justification

On th e basis of 185,000 filings in bankruptcy forecast for fiscal year 1903, 40,000 

more tha n in 1901, a f urther expansion of th e personnel of th e ban kruptcy courts 

is required. Caseload data appe al in the account for “ Salaries of referees.”

The current ratio of nonbusiness to business bankruptcies is 9 to 1 whereas 10 

years ago the ratio was about 4% to 1. There has been a grea ter increase in 

nonbusiness bankruptcies, however, business bankruptcies also have increased at 

an alarming rate, from 0,772 in 1952 to 15,241 in 1901. While the cases filed by 

employee debtors and othe rs not in business ordinarily do not involve extensive 

assets, they are, nevertheless, important and must receive the same careful 

attentio n of the referee and his staff. The nonbusiness cases require considerable 

clerical effort, whereas the referees must devote more time and attention to the 

business bankruptcies. The following table shows the num ber of nonbusiness 

cases filed as compared with the authorized perm anent clerical force for each of 

the past 10 years including a forecast of filings for 1962 and 1963:

Fis ca l ye ar

N onbusi ­

ne ss b an k ­

ru pt ci es

A u th o riz e d 

p erm an en t 

clerical 

po si tion s 1

Ave rage

pe r

clerical

em pl oy ee

Fis ca l ye ar

N o n b u si ­

ne ss b a n k ­

ru p tc ie s

A u th o ri z ed 

cle ric al 

perm an en t 

pos iti on s 1

A ve rage

pe r

clerical

em pl oy ee

1952.................. 28,331 262 108 1958_________ 80,2 64 419 192 1953.................. 33,315 273 122 1959.............. 88,9 43 499 178 1 9 5 4 .. .. .......... 44,248 291 152 I960 97 750 526 186

1955................. 50,219 347 145 1961 131,402 590 223 19 56 .,.......... .. 52,608 374 141 1962 s 153,000 635 241

1957.................. 63,617 386 165 1963................. ’ 166,500 ’ 755 221

1

 P art -t im e po sitio ns i ncl uded a t th e f ull-t im e eq uiv ale nt.

1

 E st im ate d .

• In cl udes 120 addit io nal cle ric al posi tions re ques te d he rein.

As is evident from the above table, the ratio of nonbusiness bankruptcies to 

clerical employees has more than doubled in 10 years. During this same period 

the business bankruptcies in relation to the number of clerical employees has 

remained constant. During 1961 there were on the average of 26 business ban kruptcies per clerical employee as compared with an average of 25, 10 years ago.

Substantial increases in both business and nonbusiness bankruptcies are forecast for fiscal years 1962 and 1963. In order that the referees may cope with the 

rising caseload, it is imperative tha t their clerical staffs and facilities be expanded. 

A requ est for a supplemental appropriation for fiscal year 1962 is proposed for 

later transmission.

Detailed justifications

The appropriation request for 1963 is $5,290,000, or $1,080,000 in excess of 

the obligational authority granted for 1962.

Deduction for nonrecurring expenses

The following nonrecurring expenses authorized for fiscal yea r 1962, have been 

deducted in establishing the budgetary requirements for 1963:

Amoun t Nature of expense: deducted

Equipment and furn iture for new referees_____________________ $52, 500

Furnitu re and equipment for the new clerical positions__________ 16, 000

Fur niture and furnishings required incident to the occupancy of 

new buildings scheduled for completion in 1962 or with in 90 days 

the rea fter_____________________________________________ 23,000

Total ded uction________________________________________ 91, 500

Provision for within-grade salary advancements

All of th e clerks to referees a re subject to the promotional plan for judicial personnel and will be gran ted step increases corresponding with those provided for 

by title VII of the Classification Act of 1949, as amended.
It is estimated that these within-grade salary advancements will cost $71,000, 

of which $66,500 represents increases in compensation and $4,500 related benefits—Government c ontribu tions to the civil service retirement fund and for group life insurance. The estimate, which represents approximately 80 percent of the full po tential cost of step increases, is net of a ntic ipated savings due to turn ove r of personnel and the filling of vacancies at lower r ates of pay. The requirements of 1963 are higher than in 1962 due to the rather substantial increase in the number of 

clerical positions authorized for referees.

Additional clerical personnel

The sum of $696,500 is requested for the employment of 120 additional clerical 

employees as follows:

P er so nnel c om pe ns at io n:

C le rk s (le ga l), OS- 9, a t $6,435 ix?r a n n u m ..............

C hie f c le rk s, GS- 7, at $5,355 p er a n n u m .................

C le rk s, GS- 6, at $4,830 per a n n u m ............................

C le rk s, G S- 5, at $4,345 per a n n u m ..........................

C le rk s, GS- 4, at $4,040 per a n n u m ............................

T o ta l p erm an en t................................................ .........

D ed u ct laps es (n or m al sa vin gs d u e to va ca nc ies)

N e t perm anent (a ve ra ge n u m b e r, n et s a la ry ). .

P er so nnel be ne fits :

R eti re m en t.......................................................................................

Lif e in su ra n ce.................. ...........................................................- -

H ealt h be nef its........ >.......... ...........................................................

T o ta l ben efi ts..............................................................................

R el at ed e xp en se s: F u rn it u re an d eq u ip m e n t (n onr ec urr in g)

T o ta l cost

N uni lier of 

pos iti ons

T o ta l sa la ry , 

be ne fits, 3n<l 

re la te d 

ex pe ns es

20 $128, 900

30 1 (’>0,992

20 96, 928

20 86,944

30 121,680

120 595. 504

( - ) 3 (—)12, 000

117 583, 500

37, 900

2,10 0

7.000

47.0 00

66.0 00

696, 500

The amount stated above for furniture and equipment was derived by applica­ tion of a unit cost of $550, which is believed to be sufficient to provide the new clerks with typewriters, desks, chairs, and other miscellaneous equipment. The expense, of course, is nonrecurrin g and will, if allowed, be deducted in establishing 

the budgeta ry requirements for fiscal year 1964.

Expenses relating to request for additional referees

Under the appropriation “Salaries of referees” funds have been requested for the compensation and benefits of 15 additional full-time referees and for the conversion of 16 part-time referees to a full-time status. The sum. of $209,000 is included in this app ropriation to cover the expenses (including the cost of equipment, furniture, and library facilities) of the new referees and to provide for an expansion of the facilities of part-time referees who are to be converted to

a full-time status. The expenses are itemized below:

Travel_________________________________________-______________ $12,000

Tra nsp ortatio n of thin gs________________________________________ 3, 000

Comm unication services_________________________________________ 7, 500

Rental of office space___________________________________________ 60, 000

Printin g and reproduction_______________________________________ 5, 000

Other services_________________________________________________ 1, 500

Supplies and materi als__________________________________________ 15, 000

Furniture and equipment, including library facilities (nonrecurring )----- 105, 000

To tal_______________ ___________ ______________ ____ — - 209,000

The cost of travel, rent, communications, printing, supplies, and materials are estimated on a unit cost basis. Unit costs are derived from samplings of expenses 

currently being incurred by established offices. The sum of $105,000 representin g the cost of fu rniture and equipment, including library facilities, is the amount th at will be required to establish the offices of the
100

15 new full-time referees. It is estimated th at approximately $7,000 will be 

needed for each new office (exclusive of furniture and equipment required for 

clerical personnel) as follows:

Cha m be rs.-------- - -------- -------------------------------------------- ---------------- $1,730

General office space_____________________________________________ 2, 490

Courtroo m_____________________________________________________ 2, 845

Tot al----------------------------------------- -------------------------------------’ 7,065

* Nonrecurring .

Increased subsistence (per diem) allowance and “parking fees”

The travel expenses of referees in bankruptcy, incident to holding bankruptcy 

cou rt at the various places of holding court within their respective territories, 

are paid from this appropriation. W hen a referee holds court away from his 

official station, he usually is accom panied by a member of his staff who serves 

in the capacity of a minute clerk. Expenses of trav el incurred by clerks to 

referees also are paid from this appropriation.

Pur suant to the provisions of section 6 of Public Law 87-139, approved August 

14, 1961, at the direction of th e Judicial Conference of the United State s, officers 

and employees of the Federal courts were authorized to claim per diem in lieu of 

subsistence at the rate of $16 and parking fees while in an official trave l status on 

and after September 25, 1961. A per diem allowance of $8 was fixed for travel 

not involving ov ernight absence. The rates in effect prior to September 25, 1961, 

were $12 and $6, respectively, and no parking fees were allowable. The 10 cents 

mileage allowance for the use of privately owned automobiles was not increased, 

notwithstand ing the fact th at Public Law 87-139 authorized a maximum mileage 

allowance of 12 cents.

It is estim ated tha t an additional $10,000 will be required in fiscal year 1963 to 

cover the increase in the subsistence (per diem) allowance and parking fees. 

A suppleme ntal appropriation requ est for fiscal year 1962 is proposed for later 

transmission.

The following is a distribution of the tota l actu al obligations for travel incurred 

during fiscal year 1961:

Expenses of travel by common car rier____________________________ $10, 242

Travel by privately owned automobile (mileage)___________________ 45, 082

Other, cab fares, tolls, et c_______________________________________ 2, 103

Subsistence, per diem in lieu of__________________________________ 27, 750

T o ta l.. ------------------------------ -------------------- - -------- ------------ 85,177

On the basis of a 33% percent increase in the per diem allowance, from $12 to 

$16 paymen ts for subsistence in 1963 will aggregate $37,000, or $9,250 more 

than in 1961. An additional $750 has been included to cover parking fees.

Travel of referees incident to attending meetings concerning bankruptcy administration, practices and procedures

The Judicial Conference of the United States authorized the Director of the 

Adm inistrative Office to include in the 1963 estim ates a requ est for funds to 

cover expenses of trave l and subsistenc e to be incurred by newly appointed 

referees incident to attending adm inistrative and procedural training courses. 

Referees shall attend these meetings only upon the written auth oriz atio n of the 

Director of the Administrative Office. The cost of such a meeting is estimated at 

approximately $10,000.

Thirty-one new referees were appointed during an 18-month period ending 

July 1, 1961. Relatively few of these new appointees will have extensive prior 

experience in bankruptcy administration. It is believed that an administrative 

and procedural training program would be highly advantageous and the benefits 

to be derived will unquestionably result in the improvem ent of the services 

rend ered thro ugh the bankruptcy system.

Increased volume of mail

It is estimated th at an additional $87,500 will be required in fiscal year 1963 

to cover an increase in the volume of mail. Postage and fees (formerly penalty 

mail) are paid for mailing notices of bankruptcy proceedings to creditors and 

other parties in interest. This cost averages almost $1.50 and on the basis of an 

estimated 185,000 cases forecast for fiscal year 1963, the sum of approximately 

$277,500 will be required for this purpose. The sum of only $190,000 is currently 

available in the base appropriation.
101

Re ntal of office space fo r referees expected to be dis pla ced by new judg es

I t is ex pe cted th a t a num ber of ref ere es wh o cu rr en tly oc cu py spac e in Fe de ra l

bu ild ings will be aske d to vacate su ch sp ac e so as to mak e it av ai la bl e for new 

ju dg es ap po in te d p urs uant to th e act of M ay 19, 1961. In th os e in stan ce s wh ere 

sp ac e in ot he r Fe de ra l bu ildi ng s is no t av ai la bl e to ho use th e ref ere es, it will be 

ne ce ssary to lease office an d co ur troo m spa ce in co mm ercial bu ild ings . Nor mally, 

a fu ll- tim e ref ere e and st af f re qu ire 1,500 sq ua re fe et of sp ac e, includ ing a court ­

ro om of 600 sq ua re fee t. First-c la ss office sp ac e re nts a t ap pro xim at el y $4 pe r 

sq uar e foo t. On th is ba sis, th e su m of $6,00 0 wo uld be re qu ired to pr ov id e 

quart ers for a fu ll- tim e referee in a co mmercial bu ild in g, and th e est im at e of 

$60 ,00 0 includ ed he rein wou ld be suffi cie nt to pr ov id e sp ac e for 10 ref ere es an d 

su pport in g staf fs.

St an da rd izin g dockets, fil in g, an d reporting procedures in ba nk ru ptcy cases

A co m m itte e co ns istin g of seve ral cle rks of co ur t, referees in ban kru ptc y,

re pr es en ta tive s of th e A dm in is tr at iv e Office, an d of th e N at io nal Archive s re ce nt ly 

app ro ve d new do ck et an d re port for ms to be us ed in b ankru ptc y cas es. I t wa s 

ag re ed th a t seve ral dis tr ic ts co nd uc t an ex pe rim en t us ing th e ne w form s an d 

pr oc ed ur es wh ich we re outlin ed by th e co m m itte e. T he ex pe rim en t is to co m ­

men ce Ja nuary 1, 1962, and will be ev al uate d aft er th e ex pir at io n of a pe riod of 

6 m on th s. In an ticip ati on of th e ex pe rim en t be ing a su ccess th e est im at e for 

fisc al yea r 1963 includ es a re ques t for an ad di tional $10,0 00 with wh ich to pr ov id e 

all of th e referee s in bankru ptc y an d cle rks of co urt w ith new do ck ets, for ms , and 

oth er m at er ia l. I t is be lie ve d th a t th e new pr oc ed ur es will el im in at e co ns id er ab le 

dup lica tion of eff ort wh ich no w ex ist s an d will gre at ly im pr ov e th e reco rd ing and 

re po rt in g of ban kru ptc y cases.

Fur nitu re requirements incide nt to the occ upancy of n ew bu ild ing s

T he Gen eral Se rvice s A dm in is tr at io n in fiscal yea r 1963 is to assu me bu dg et in g

fo r all of th e fu rn iture re quir em en ts of th e co ur ts. An ex ce pt io n wa s mad e w ith 

re sp ec t to th e re qu irem en ts of referee s in bankru ptc y in view of th e fa ct th a t th e 

bankru ptc y sy stem is fin an ce d out of a spec ial fu nd in th e T re as ury .

F urn it ure an d fu rn ishi ng s re qu ired by referee s in bankru ptc y in ci de nt to th e 

oc cu pa nc y of new bu ild ings sc he du le d for co mpl etio n du ri ng fiscal yea r 1963 ar e 

as follows :

Location Date scheduled for completion Amount

Hartford, Co nn...... ......... ..... .................. . . . September 1962.................... . ......... $4,506

6,100

539

539

3,431

2.452

Memphis, Te nn ..... ........ ..... ................................... October 1962............................... .. .

Thom asville, Oa ....................................................... December 1962____________ ____

Brvson City, N. C........................................ ............. February 1963.................... . .. ___

Montpelier, Vt . .................. ..................................... April 1963.............. . ___________

San Francisco, C alif. ........................ ....................... May 1963____________ ___________

Rounded

17.567

17.500

T he es tim at es were fu rn ishe d by th e G en eral Se rvices A dm in is trat io n in 

• ac co rd an ce w ith an ag re em en t be tw ee n th e D irec to r of th e A dm in is trat iv e Office

of th e U.S . Cou rts an d th e A dm in is tr at or of th e G en eral Se rvices A dm in is trat io n.

T he es tim at es we re pre par ed by th e Gen eral Servi ces A dm in is tr at io n’s re gi on al 

offices su bje ct to review and su m m ar iz at io n by th e C en tral Office of th e Gen eral 

Se rvice s A dm in istrat io n.

r

IN C R E A S E S R E Q U E ST E D FO R 1963

Mr. Rooney. These pages indicate the request is in the amount of 

$5,290,000, which would be a staggering increase of $1,0S0,000 over 

the appropriations to date for the current fiscal year. There is a 

table of increases at pages 1S6 through 1S9.

A D D IT IO N A L E M PL O Y E E S

This would entail the addition of 120 additional employees to the 

payroll?
102

Mr. J ackson. Yes, sir. Most of that increase, Mr. Chairman, 

is keyed to additional referees, but I think I should say now that if 

we did not get the additional referees in 1963 fiscal year we would 

still need these people, because the work will be there and somebody 

has to do it.

Mr. Rooney. Can you get along without the referees if you get 

these people?

M r. Jackson. No, sir, not very well.

Mr. Rooney. I should never have asked that question.

F U R N IT U R E AN D E Q U IP M E N T

With regard to the furniture item at page 186 entitled “Furniture 

and equipment (nonrecurring), $66,000” and the further item with regard to “Furniture and equipment, including library facilities (nonrecurring), $105,000” at page 187, do you have a breakdown of these 

items?

Mr. J ackson. I do not have that.

Mr. Rooney. How did you arrive at these figures?

Mr. Anderson. I have it, Mr. Chairman. The item of $105,000 

for furniture and equipment breaks down this way:

Mr. Rooney. May we look at that? Perhaps we can save some 

time.

Mr. Anderson. I am sorry. T do not have it in table form.

Mr. Rooney. What is the breakdown?

Mr. Anderson. $1,730 for furniture for chambers; $2,845 for furniture for the courtroom; $2,490 for general office space furniture.

Mr. Rooney. What else makes up the $105,000?

Mr. Andersen. That is the unit cost, times 15 new referees. I was 

giving you the unit cost.

PA R K IN G F E E S

Mr. Rooney. At page 200 of the justifications we find we are in the 

parking business again. There is an item of $750 for parking fees. 

This can become quite an item overall in the Government, can it not?

Mr. Airhart. It could indeed. As a matter of fact we have been 

surprised at our actual cost because at the time the legislation was 

under consideration there was much testimony from all agencies of the 

Government that this was a very sizable cost to their traveling people.

Mr. Rooney. For instance, with regard to these 120 additional employees in bankruptcy, would they be reimbursed for parking fees if 

they drove downtown to the referee’s chambers to go to work each 

day?

Air. Airhart. No. This is only when they are traveling.

Mr. Rooney. Only when they are in traveling status; is that 

correct?

Mr. Aircraft. Yes, sir.

Mr. Rooney. Any questions?

Mr. Cederberg. T was intrigued about this parking-fee item. 

That $750 is to cover how many referees?

Mr. J ackson. 129.

Mr. Cederberg. How much do you have in the budget for judges’ 

parking?
103

Mr. Anderson. We testified to that. The $60,000 item for travel­ ing and miscellaneous would include judges’ parking fees.

Mr. Cederberg. You do not know how much is for parking?

Mr. Anderson. $60,000 is for parking fees.

Mr. Cederberg. $60,000 is for parking fees for how many judges? How many judges will that $60,000 cover? lo u have $750 for 129 referees and $60,000 for parking for how many judges, 300-some plus 

supporting personnel?

Mr. J ackson. I think the reason is that not all referees hold court away from their regular place of office. Many have a fixed place of office and do not travel outside their headquarters.

Mr. Cederberg. Is the difference so great between traveling 

referees and traveling judges?

Mr. Airhart. A large part of it is for probation officers.

Mr. Cederberg. The parking fee is the same for a judge as for a referee. That is why I raise tfie question, lo u have $750 for 129 referees and $60,000 for 300 judges.

Mr. Garabedian. $37,500 of that $60,000 is for probation officers only. Probation officers travel primarily by private automobiles and they are frequently parking. They are going from place to place and parking five or six times a day. On occasion, it may cost a nickel for a meter and downtown it may cost $1 or $2 or $3. That is the bulk of the estimate. However, that figure is not materializing.

Mr. Cederberg. Tha t is all I have.

Mr. Rooney. That concludes the hearings for today with the exception of the Supreme Court, which we expect at 3 o’clock. At this time, Judge McGuire, I would like to say that I think I bespeak the thoughts of all the members of this committee when I say we very much appreciate your cooperation and that of Chief Judge Campbell. We know what you have been trying to do to clear up the operation of the courts so that it is done in an economical and sensible way. I have never met two finer gentlemen than Judge Campbell and you and have never had better cooperation than we have had from you in all the many years I have been on this committee. 1 wish you would be so kind as to extend to Judge Campbell the wishes of all members of this committee that his wife will have a 

speedy and complete recovery.

Judge McGuire. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman and you 

gentlemen. That makes all our efforts worthwhile.

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

W IT N ESSES

HON . TO M C. C LA RK , A SSO C IA TE JU S T IC E

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

D IN A R. ZU C C O N I, A SSIS T A N T TO T H E M A R SH A L

J. G EO R G E ST EW A R T, A R C H IT E C T O F T H E C A P IT O L

W A LT E R L. R U B EL, C O O R D IN A T IN G E N G IN E E R

C H A R LES A. H EN L O C K , A D M IN IS T R A T IV E A SSIS T A N T

Mr. Rooney. The final item for today is the request for the Supreme Court of the United States. This appears beginning at page 355 of the committee print, and beginning at page 1 of the justification book. The total request for the Supreme Court of the United States in
104

the coming fiscal year is in the amount $2,067,000, which would be 

an increase of $84,100 over the amounts appropriated to date in the 

current fiscal year.

We shall insert at this point in the record page 1 of the justifications. 

(The material referred to follows.)

Summary statement relating appropriation estimate to current appropriation

1962 app ro pr ia tion in ann ua l a ct............................................... Bas e for 1963....... . ..................................................................................

N et diffe ren ce, 1963 ov er 1962:

1. Salaries , Supre me C ourt..............................................

2. Pri nting and b inding Supreme C ourt R ep or ts __

3. Miscellaneou s expenses, Supre me C o u r t_______ 4. Ca re of the build ing an d groun ds , S up reme C ou rt.

5. Au tom obile for th e Chie J us tic e, Su prem e C ourt.

6. Books for the S uprem e C ourt........ . .............

' $1,982.900 

' 1,982,900

Req uiremen ts

1962 appr opr iated

1963

es tim ate

Difference, 

increase 

(+ ) or de ­

creas e (—)

$1, 479,000 

92.000 

82,800 

284,400

6,700

38,000

$1, 494, 000 

108,000 

96,200 

327,000 

6,800

35,000

+$15,00 0

+ 16,000 

+13,400 

+42,600

+100

-3 ,0 00

1,982,900 2,067,000 +84,100 +84, 100

$2,067,000

Tota l esti mate for 1963................. . ................ .........................................................................

' Includ es $38,000 estim ate for activ iti es prev io us ly carre d un de r “ Books for th e Su prem e Cou rt. Li br ary of Con gress.” J

Mr. Rooney. We are indeed honored to have with us the distinguished Associate Justice of the Supreme Court, the Honorable 

Tom Clark of Texas. It is again a pleasure, Mr. Justice Clark, to 

greet you. You have been here many times over all of the years, 

previously as the Attorney General, and it is always a pleasure to 

hear from you.

Mr. Justice Clark. Thank you, sir.

Mr. Rooney. We await your statement with regard to the requested 

appropriation, if you care to make one.

General Statement

Mr. Justice Clark. Very well, sir.

You might say that the request is about the same, if not identical, 

with last year’s with two or three exceptions.

As the chairman said, the figures show an increase of $S4,100 and 

$15,000 of that is for within-grade increases and retirement benefits 

that are required by statute.

I suppose that the largest item that comes under our category is 

the printing and binding. We seemed to be a little bit more voluminous last year in our writings.

Our cases have involved more complicated constitutional problems 

requiring additional writing of about 1,000 pages.

'Phis estimate in this budget proposal is the same as it was last year 

because we anticipate that it will run about the same for this coming 

year. In any event, heretofore the appropriation was around $90,000 

and I think we expended only around $70,000 a year for quite a few 

years. It has gone up on account of the increased number of cases 

resulting in an increased number of volumes. I think four volumes 

will be necessary to cover the Court’s work for last term.
105

The miscellaneous expense item is in Fact a little lower than last 

year, lower than what you authorized, and we still have the eases 

which are covered—

Mr. Rooney. Those are the display cases, not legal cases, Mr. 

Justice?

Mr. Justice Clark. That is right. They are the display cases.

Mr. Rooney. They are now here for the fourth time?

Mr. Justice Clark. I think three. 1 still think they would be 

most helpful and justified and are needed, but I will stand on the 

justifications put into the written request. The balance of the request is covered by the Architect except for 

some small items, such as the Chief Justice’s car and things of tha t type, which are the same. The increase there is about $100 and tha t 

is an in-grade promotion. I would say that, on the whole, our budget, with the exception ol the statutory increases and the printing and binding, is about the 

same as it was last year. If there are any questions, I will be happy to answer them.

Object classification

[In t ho us an ds of dollars]

11 Perso nnel comp ensation :

Pe rm an en t posit ion s__________

Po sit ion s othe r th an pe rm an en t. 

Other p ersonn el co m pe ns at io n. .

To tal personne l co mp ensat ion .

12 Perso nnel benef its..................... ...........

To tal oblig ations ...............................

1961 actual 1962 estim ate 1963 estim ate

1,278

68

4

1,315 

79

1,329

79

1,349

81

1,394

85

1,408

86

1,430 1,479 1.494

Personnel sunt in ary

1961 actual 1962 esti mate 1963 estim ate

To ta l nu mbe r of pe rm an en t po sitio ns ............ . ............................ 166 168 168

Fu ll- tim e eq uiva lent of o ther p osi tions ... ______ ______ ____ 18 20 20

\ verage nu mbe r of all em ployee s _________ ____ . _______ 178 183 183

N um be r of em ploy ees a t en d of y ea r------ --------------------- ------ 193 205 205

Program and financing

[In thou sand s of dollars]

1961 ac tual 1962 esti ma te 1962 estim ate

Prog ram by activities :

Salaries, Supre me Cou rt (to tal ob lig ations )_____________ 1,430 1,479 1.494

Fin an cing :

Un oblig ate d balanc e lapsin g 10

Ne w obliga tional au th ori ty (a pp ro pr iation )___________ 1,440 1,479 1.494

Mr. Rooney. The first of the six items which make up the request 

for the Supreme Court of the United States is entitled “Salaries, Supreme Court,” and is to be found at page 355 of the committee 

print.
$1,479 ,000

1,479,000

106

\Ve sha ll inse rt at this poin t in the reco rd pages 2 throug h 8 of the 

justifi cat ion s.

(The page s follow:)

Statement relating appropriation estimate to current appropriation

1962 a p p ro p ri ati o n in a n n u al a c t........................... ..................... .................

Bas e for 1963______ ___ ______ __________ ____________ ___________ ZZ-ZZZZZ

N et differen ce , 1963 o ve r 1962:

R eq uir em en ts

1962 a p p ro ­

p ri ate d

1963

es ti m at e

D iff eren ce , 

incr ea se 

(+ ) or d ecrea se ( —)

Sal ar ie s, Supre m e C o u rt .......................... . $1,479 ,000 $1,4 94,000 +$ 15 ,000

T o ta l est im ate for 1963................................................................................................................................ i (

 494,000

+1 5,00 0

Statement showing analysis by object

Obj ec t 1962 es tim at e 1963 esti m ate

In cr ea se (+ ) 

or

de crea se ( —)

11 Per so n ne l co m pen sa ti on.......... .............................

12 Per so nnel b en efi ts .................. . ............. . ...................

$1,3 94,0 00

85,000

$1,40 8,0 00

86,000

+$ 14,00 0

+1, 00 0

T o ta l........... ...................................................... 1,47 9,00 0 1,494,0 00 +15 ,000

Summary of increased requirements for 196$

Nature of expense (or savings):

1. Provision for within-grade salary advancements (compensation Amount

$14,000 and benefits $1,000)______________________________ $15, 000

Increase, 1963 over 1962__________ ____ _______ ________ 15,000

JU S T IF IC A T IO N

Language changes

None.

Objectives

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

the salaries of the members of th e Supreme C ourt of the United States, the officers 

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

General justification

The following statement reflects the casework of the Court for the past thre e 

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

conclusion of October terms 1958, 1959, and 1960

[O ct ob er t erm 1960 e n d ed Ju n e 19, 1961, c or re sp on ds to fisc al y ear 1961]

O rigi na l A ppell ate M is ce llan eo us T ota l

1958 1959 1960 1958 1959 1960 1958 1959 1960 1958 1959 1960

N u m b er o f case s on doc ke ts ............ ....... ..................... 15 12 12 1,041 1,047 1,046 1,006 1,119 1,255 2,062 2,178 2,313

N u m b er disp os ed of d u rin g te rm s............................ 3 0 1 886 860 887 892 962 1,040 1,781 1,822 1.928

N u m b er re m ai nin g 

on dock ets _______ 12 12 11 155 187 159 114 157 215 281 356 385

T erm s

D is tr ib u ti o n of cases di sp os ed o f d u ri n g te rm s: O rigin al ca se s___________________________________________________________________ A p p ell ate cases on m e r its ...____________________________ ______________ _____ ___ P eti ti o n s for c ert io ra ri ............... ............................... ............. ............. - ......... ....................... . . . . M is ce llan eo us do ck et a p p li cati o n s......... . — ......... . . . . . . . . . ............. . .................................

D is tr ib u ti o n of cases r em ai nin g o n dock ets : O rigi na l ca se s....................................................................................................................................... A ppel la te cases o n m e rit s ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- P eti ti o n s for cert io ra ri ---------------- ------------------------------------------------------------------------- M is ce llan eo us do ck et ap p li cati o n s____ ____ _____________________________________

1958 1959

■ '•

1960

3 0 1

245 215 259

641 645 628

892 962 1,040

12 12 11

84 116 85

71 71 74

114 :157 .215

An appropriation of $1,494,000 is requested for salaries of the Supreme Court staff for 1963. This represen ts an increase of $15,000 over the 1962 appropriation 

for this item. Detailed justification

A ctu al 1961 E sti m ate 1962 E sti m ate 1963

N u m ­

be r of 

po si ­

ti ons

A v erage

n u m ­

ber

em ­

pl oyed

C ost

N u m ­

ber of 

po si ­

ti ons

A ver ­

age

n u m ­

be r

em ­

pl oyed

C ost

N u m ­

b er of 

posi ­

ti ons

A ver ­

age

n u m ­

ber

em ­

ploy ed

C ost

F u ll -t im e e m plo ym e n t. - ........................

P art- ti m e e m plo ym e n t- - ........................

T em p o ra ry em pl oy -

166

20

160

18

$1,277 ,597

64,583

2,96 8

3,899

4,11 0 

9,47 7 

67,243

168

20

163

20

$1,31 5,3 06

73,694

5,0 00

168

20

163

20

$1,3 29,3 06

73,694

5,000

R eg u la r p ay in excess

E m p lo y er’s co n tr ib u ­

ti ons:

"Life in su ra nce 4,5 00

10,5 00

70,000

4,500

10,500

71,0 00 H ealt h be ne fits

R eti re m en t fu nd

S u b to ta l... ........ 186 178 1,429,877 

10,123

188 183 1,479,0 0 188 183 1,494, 000

T o ta l, ap pro ­

p ri ati o n o r 

esti m ate . _ 1,44 0,0 00 1,4 79,00 0 1.494.00 0

Provision for within-grade sala ry advancements

The sum of $15,000 is requ ired to grant regular within-grade promotions which will become due in 1963. The estimate includes $14,000 to cover increases in compensation and $1,000 for related benefits—agency contributio ns to the civil 

service retir eme nt fund.
108

Mr. R ooney. These pages ind icate th at the req uest for salaries is 

in the am ou nt of $1,494,000 which would be an increase of $15,000.

Mr. Justice Clark, this increase, as you previou sly sta ted, is enti rel y 

for wtihin-grade pro motions, retire me nt benefits, and so fort h?

Mr. J ustice Clark. T hat is righ t; no increase in employees.

Mr. R ooney. No incr ease in positions?

Mr. J ustice C lark. Yes, sir.

P rinting and Binding Supreme Court Reports

Program and financing

[In thou sand s of dollars]

1961 act ual 1962 est im ate 1963 e sti mate

Pr og ram by ac tiv ities: Pr intin g an d bi nd ing Supre me Cou rt 

repo rts (to tal obligations) (object class 24)__. 90 92 108 Fi na nc ing: New obliga tion al auth or ity (a pp ro pr iatio n) _____ 90 92 108

Mr. Rooney. Th e seco nd item is to be found at page 357 of the 

comm itte e print a nd is entitled “P rin tin g and binding, Supreme C ourt 

repo rts.”

We sh all insert here in the record pages 9 thr ough 13 of t he ju stification s, which indicate th at the req uest is in the am ou nt of $108,000. 

Th is would be an increase of $16,000 ove r the am ou nt appro priat ed 

for print ing and binding in the curre nt fiscal yea r.

(The pages follow:)

Statement relating appropriation estimate to current appropriation

$92.000 

92.000

1962 ap pr op ria tio n in ann ua l a ct_____________ ____ __________ ____ ______ ___________

Base for 1963____ _____________________________________________________________ Z.ZZZZZZ N et difference, 1963 over 1962:

Req uiremen ts

1962 ap pr opriated

1963

es tim ate

Difference, 

increase 

(+ ) or decreas e ( —)

Pri nting a nd bin din g. Su prem e Cou rt re po rts_____ $92,000 $108,000 +$16,000

Tot al e sti mate for 1963_____________ _____ ______________ _________________ _________ 108, ooo

Statement showing analysis by object

Object 1962 est im ate 1963 est im ate

Increase (+ ) 

or

decrease (—)

24 Pri nting a nd r ep rodu ction___________ ____ ___ ________ $92,000 $108,000 +$16,000

T ota l.......................... ..................................................... ............ 92,000 108,000 +16,000

Summary o f increased requirements for 1963

Natur e of expense (or savings ):

1. Increase for printing and reproduction of slip opinions, prelimi- Amount

nary prints, and boun d volumes of Supreme Court rep orts__ $16, 000

Increase, 1963 over 196*2______________________________ 16, 000
109

JUST IFIC ATION

Langu age changes

No ne.

Detail ed j us tification

An ap pr op ri at io n of $108 ,00 0 is re qu es te d for pri nting and bi nd in g Su pr em e 

C ourt re po rts in 1963, an in cr ea se of $16,0 00 ov er th e am ount appro pri at ed for 

1962. Thi s wo rk is re qui re d by sta tu te and is pe rfor m ed by th e Gov er nm en t 

Pri nt in g Office a t ra te s fixed by th a t ag en cy . The actu al co st du ring th e past 

3 ye ar s ha s been as follow s:

M

1959 1960 1961

Fo r sli p opinio ns . ........................... ........................................... $50,860 

32,977

$53,531

31,590

$53,009 

Fo r pr elim inary pr in ts and bo un d vo lu m es.................................. 36,991

T ota l............ .................. ......................................................... 83.837 85,121 90.000

I t is es tim at ed th a t appr oxi m at el y $1 08,00 0 will be re qu ired in 1962— th e 

am ount of th e pr es en t re que st . The ap pro pri at io n of $92,0 00 gra nte d fo r 1962 

appea rs to be in ad eq uate and it may be ne ce ss ary to see k a su pp le m en ta l 

ap pr op ri at io n.

T he co st of pr in ting and bi nd in g Su pr em e C our t re port s de pe nd s up on th e 

vo lu m e of m at er ia l to be pri n te d an d bo un d an d th e ra te s be ing ch ar ge d by th e 

G ov er nm en t Print in g Office a t th e tim e th e wo rk is do ne . T he to ta l pa ge s of 

m at er ia l to be pri nte d an d bo un d increa sed from 2,7 38 pa ge s in 1960 to an 

est im at ed 3,436 pages in 1961. The re qu es t for 1963 is ba se d up on th e as su m ption th a t th e vo lum e of m at er ia l to be pri nte d an d bo un d in 1963 will be th e 

s

am e as th a t for th e la st co m pl et ed co urt te rm , 1960 (fiscal yea r 1961).

Mr. Rooney. Reference has been made to this item by Mr. Justice 

Clark. If we were to appropriate the $108 ,000 and you were not to 

use it for the purpose of printing and binding the Supreme Court 

reports, it would lapse into the Treasury?

Mr. Justice Clark. Right.

M is c ella n eo u s E x pen ses

Object classification

[In tho us an ds of dollars]

21 Tra vel an d tran sp or ta tio n of p e rs o n s.....................................

22 Tra nsp or ta tion of thin gs..............................................................

23 R en t, c om mu nic ati ons, an d uti li ti es. — ................................

24 P ri nti ng an d re pr od uc tio n....................................-....................

25 O th er se rv ices............................ ...................................................

26 Su pp lie s a nd m ate ri als ...................................-...........................

31 E quip m ent........... .........................................................................

Tota l o bligations........................................................................

1961 ac tual 1962 es tim ate 1963 estim ate

1 1 1

1 2 2

15 15 15

14 15 15

5 10 6

22 19 19

11 21 38

70 83 96

►

Program and financing

[I n tho us an ds of dollars]

1961 ac tual 1962 es tim ate 1963 estim ate

Program by ac tiv ities: M isc ell aneous expen ses , Supre me 

Cou rt (to ta l oblig ations) - .... .............. ...................................... 70 83 96

Fi na nc ing: Ne w ob lig ational auth ori ty (a pp ro pr iatio n) .......... 70 83 96
110

Mr. Rooney. The third item is entitled “Miscellaneous expenses” 

and it appears at page 358 of the committee print.

We shall insert at this point in the record pages 14 through 20 of 

the justifications, which indicate that this request is in the amount of 

$96,200, which would be an increase of $13,400. This increase is 

set forth at page 16. This is the item in which we find the first of 

two parts for the bronze display cases. We find tha t once again 

we have a request for the purchase of eight bronze display cases in 

the amount of $17,200; $13,400 being arrived at by deducting a 

nonrecurring item of $3,800 for the portrait of Chief Justice John 

Marshall.

I do not know if we need go into any detail with regard to these 

display cases.

(The pages referred to follow:)

•>

Statement relating appropriation estimate to current appropriation

1962 ap pr op ria tio n in an nu al ac t..______________ ____ _______ ______ ....................... . . . . .............. $82, SIX)

■ Base for 1963_______ _____ _______ _________________ _______. __________ _____________ 82,800

N et difference, 1963 ov er 1962:

M d V. * - ' .. • Req ui remen ts

1962 ap propriated

1963

estim ate

Difference, 

increase 

(+ ) or de ­

crease (—)

Miscellaneou s expenses, Supre me C ourt ..................... $82,800 $96,200 +$13,400

To ta l es tim ate for 1963...................................................................................... ....................... . . . . . 96,200

Statement showing analysis by object

Object

21 Tra ve l an d tra ns po rta tio n of persons .

22 Tr an sp or ta tion of thi ng s............. .........

23 R en t, comm unica tions, an d utiliti es .

24 Pri nt in g a nd r ep ro du ction____ _____

25 Oth er serv ices..........................................

26 Su pplie s an d materials......... ................

31 E quip m en t__________________ ____

T ota l........................................... ...........

1962 estim ate 1963 estim ate

Increase (+ ) 

or

decrease (—)

$1,000

2,000

15,000

15,000

10,000

19,000

20,800

$1,000

2,000

15,000

15,000

6,200

19,000

38,000

-$3,80 0

+17,200

82,800 96,200 +13,400

Summary of increased requirements for 1963

Na tur e of expense (or savings):

1. Deduction for the nonrecurring expense of restorin g the Peale Amount

portra it of Chief Jus tice John Marshall__________________ — $3, 800

2. For the purchase of 8 bronze display cases_________________ 17, 200

Net increase, 1963 over 1962___________________________ 13, 400

•*

JUSTIF ICATIO N

Language changes

None.

Objectives

This appropriation prov ides for the miscellaneous expenses of the Supreme 

Court which include the purchase of office, janitoring, and other housekeeping 

supplies, materials and equ ipm ent; trav el (including autom obile transporta tion
Ill

fo r th e C ou rt an d its offic ers ); co m m un ic at io n serv ices; an d penalt y mail . P ri n t­ ing and bind ing, ex cept fo r th e U.S. re po rts, als o is pa id fo r from th is ap pro pri atio n.

General j us tif ication

An ap pro pri at io n of $96,2 00 is re qu es te d fo r 1963 to su pply th e C o u rt ’s ne ed s fo r su pp lies an d eq ui pm en t, an d fo r oth er misce lla ne ou s ex pe ns es. The am ount 

re qu es te d is $13 ,40 0 in excess of la st y ear’s appro pri at io n.

De duction fo r nonre cur ring exp ense of resto ring Pea le portrait of Chief Ju stice Jo hn

Mar shall

T he s um of $3,800 wh ich wa s pr ov id ed in last y ear’s ap pro pri ati on for cle an ing, re stor in g, an d re pa irin g th e C o u rt ’s port ra it of Ch ief Ju st ic e Jo hn M ar sh al l ha s been de duct ed in es ta bl is hi ng th e budget ar y re quir em en ts fo r 1963. A 5- ye ar pr og ra m fo r th e re no va tion of th e port ra it s of fo rm er Ju st ic es of th is C ou rt ha s 

be en co mpl eted .

Purch ase of eight bronze disp la y cases

Fo llo wing th e disallo wan ce la st y ear of th e requ es t for $17,2 00 f or d ocu m en ta ry ex hi bi t cas es, th e ju st ific at io n fo r" th e pr op os ed ex pe nd itur e wa s ca refu lly re co n­ side red. For reas on s su m m ar iz ed below it wa s co nc lude d th a t th e pr op os al o ffers a so un d so lu tion to a s ubst anti al pr ob le m , an d th e re ques t fo r th e ne ce ssary fu nd s 

is th er ef or e re sp ec tfu lly re su bm it te d. Be ca us e th e Cou rt does no t m ee t co nt in uo us ly an d be ca us e th e s ea ting c ap ac ity of th e co ur troo m is seve rely lim ited , 85 to 90 pe rc en t of th e ha lf mi llion pe op le who vi si t th e Su prem e C ourt B ui ld in g ea ch yea r do no t see th e C ourt in ses sio n. Th e pr op os ed ex hi bi t wou ld pr ovi de a w or thwhile disp lay fo r all wh o vis it th e bu ild ing. I t wo uld als o ut ili ze w h at is now a largely w as te d as se t: th e price les s co lle cti on of histor ic docu m en ta ry m at er ia ls reflec tin g th e orig in an d fu nc tion of 

th e Fed er al ju di ci ar y. In re ex am inin g th e pr op os al fo r th e ex hi bi t tw o po ss ible ob ject io ns we re 

ex plored . The firs t wa s th a t th e ex hi bi t m ig ht detr act from th e es se nt ia l chara ct er o f th e Su pr em e C ou rt Building as a co ur th ou se . A re ex am in at io n of th e pr op os ed desig n and loca tio n of th e ex hib it cases confirm ed th e conc lusio n th a t th e in st al ­ la tion wou ld en ha nc e ra th er th a n diminish th e classic dig nity of th e bu ild ing. A de sig n fo r th e cas es ha s be en de ve lope d by th e A rc hi te ct of th e C ap itol wh ich is in ke ep ing w ith th e ex istin g de co r an d wh ich bl en ds w ith an d en ha nc es th e st ru ctu ra l di gn ity of th e ha ll are a in wh ich th e cas es wou ld be in stal led. Th is ar ea is on th e gr ou nd floor of th e bu ild ing, ph ys ic al ly se par at ed from th e co urt­ room itse lf wh ich is on th e floor ab ov e. O th er facilit ies on th e sa m e floor as th e pr op os ed ex hi bi t includ e th e po lic e room , th e pres s room , th e pu blic teleph on e, an d a pu bl ic ca feteria . It seem s evid ent th a t th e in st al la tion of an ex hi bi t of th e tv pe pr op os ed wo uld aid in cr ea ting an at m os ph er e of in st it uti onal di gn ity in th e are a invo lved . Drawin gs an d phot ogr ap hs sh ow ing th e pr op os ed cas es in plac e will be su bm itte d to th e co m m itte e for its co ns id er at io n a t th e he aring. The seco nd po ssi ble obj ec tion co ns idered wa s th at th e docu m enta ry m at er ia ls in vo lv ed m ig ht bett er (a nd mor e econ om icall y) be di sp laye d in th e new Mus eu m of H is to ry an d Te ch no logy or in some ex istin g ex hi bi t fa ci lity . In quir y wa s mad e of D r. Leo na rd Car m ic ha el , Sec re ta ry of th e Sm iths on ia n In st it uti on, who ad vi se d th a t th e new M us eu m w ou ld ex hibi t ph ys ic al ob je ct s ra th er th an do cu ­ m enta ry m at er ia ls, an d th a t no pre se nt or fu tu re use of th e la tt e r wa s pr op os ed . So fa r as co uld be de te rm in ed , no oth er ag en cy ha s or is co nte m pla ting pl an s 

which wou ld mak e th es e his to ric m at er ia ls av ai la bl e to th e pu bl ic .

DIS PL A Y CASE S

Mr. Justice Clark. As T said, there are some three pages in the 

justifications that explain this and we think they are most helpful to us in displaying some of the memorabilia of the Supreme Court. We have quite a large number of people who come there every year, as I explained last year. 1 do not see any need now for my taking the 

time of the committee to go over that again.

Mr. Rooney. Most of us are familiar with that. Unfortunately 

we have a couple of Directors of the Smithsonian Institution here.

83455— 62-
112

Air. Justice Clark. Is that so? Good. Then they can understand 

the importance of it.

Mr. Rooney. They think they should he down in the new Smithsonian Institution.

Mr. Justice Clark. There is an item in our justification in explanation ol our position. We take issue with that and I understand the 

new building will not include such exhibits.

Mr. Rooney. The total requested amount in the budget of the 

Supreme Court for the display cases is $17,200, plus what?

Mr. Henlock. $3,600.

Mr. Rooney. A total of $20,800.

Automobile for the Chief J ustice

Object classification

(In thousand s of dollars)

1961 actual 1962 estimate 1963 estimate

11 Personnel compensation: Permanen t positions.................

26 Supplies and materials........ . ......................... 5

1

5

1

5

1

Total obligations................................... . ............ . 7 7 7

Personnel summ ary

1961 actual 1962 estimate 1963 estim ate

Total num ber of perm anen t positions......... ............................... 1

1

1

1

1

1 Average num ber of all employees......... .......................................

Nu mb er of employees at end of year................................... 1 1 1

P ro gra m an d financin g

[In thousand s of dollars]

1961 actual 1962 estimate 1963 estimate

Prog ram by activities: Automobile for the Chief Justice (total 

oblig ations)..___ ________________ ___________ 7 7 7

Financing: New obligational autho rity (appro priation) _____ 7 7 7

We will now take up the item of the automobile for the Chief Justice 

which appears on page 361 of the committee print and is a request in 

the amount of $6,800 which compares with $6,700 in the current 

fiscal year, an increase of merely $100.

Books for the Supreme Court

Program and financing

I In thousands of dollars]

1961 actual 1962 estimate 1963 estim ate

Program by activities: Purchase of books and periodicals (total 

obligations) (object class 31).................. ......................... .......... 35 38 35

Financing: New obligational auth ority (appro pri ation)......... 35 38 35
Mr. Rooney. If there is no objection, gentlemen, we will pass now 

to the item entitled “Books for the Supreme Court,’’ which is to be 

found at page 362 of the committee print.

Mr. Justice Clark. Mr. Chairman, I overlooked something and I 

hope that you will pardon me.

Mr. Rooney. It is just as well you did. That is a decrease of 

$3,000, is it not?

Mr. Justice Clark. The appropriation for books has been in another appropriation and it was just transferred to ours. It is a decrease. Mr. Bow. It was in the Library of Congress appropriation and I 

suggested last year this would be a proper place for it.

Mr. Justice Clark. That is right. I trust tha t it will make you 

very happy to see this decrease.

Mr. Rooney. We shall insert at this point in the record pages 41 

through 46 of the justifications, which indicate that the request is in 

the amount of $35,000 as compared with an appropriation of $38,000 

in the current fiscal year.

(The pages follow:)

Statement relating appropriation estimate to current appropriation

1962 a pp ro pr iatio n in an nu al a c t........................................................... . ......................... .................. 

1

 $38,000

Base for 1963............................................................................................................................................... 

1

 38.000

Net difference, 1963 ov er 1962:

Req uiremen ts

1962 ap pr opr iated

1963

es tim ate

Difference, 

increase 

(+ ) or decrease (—)

' $3 8. (XX) $35,000 -$ 3,00 0

Tot al e sti mate for 1963____________________ ______________ _______________ _____ _

i A ctivities previou sly carried un de r “ Books for t he S uprem e Cou rt, Lib ra ry of C ongre ss."

35.000

Statement showing analysis by object

Object

31 E quip m en t____________________________ ____ - ..................

T o ta l................................................................................................

1962 estim ate 1963 esti mate

Increa se (+ ) 

or

decrease (—)

'$3 8,000

38.000

$35,000

35,000

-$ 3,00 0

-3 .0 00

1

 Activities prev iou sly carried un de r “ Books for t he S uprem e Cou rt, Li br ary of Co ngress.”

Summary of increased requirements for 1963

Nature of expense (or savings):

1. Deduction for the nonrecurring expense of purchasing sets of 

the new “ Modern Federal Practice Digest.” (The activity 

for the purchase of books and periodicals was previously carried Amount

under “ Books for the Supreme Court, Library of Congress”)____ — $3, 000

Decrease, 1963 over 1962___________________________________ —3, 000
114

JUSTIFICATION

Language changes

The n ew la ng ua ge fo r t hi s ap pro pri ati on is as follows: "F o r bo ok s a nd periodica ls 

fo r th e Su pr em e C ou rt, to be purc has ed by th e L ib ra rian of th e Su pr em e Cou rt, 

und er t he d irec tion o f th e Ch ief Ju sti ce.” Thi s i tem, fo rm erly in t he b ud ge t of the 

L ib ra ry of Co ng res s, is plac ed in th e bud get o f th e Su pr em e C ourt by dire ctio n of 

th e C om m itte e on A pp ro pr ia tio ns of th e Hou se of R ep re se nta tives . Th e co mm itte e sta te d a t page 11 of Hou se R ep ort No. 419, M ay 19, 1961: “ The c om m itte e 

th in ks th is ap pro pri at io n sh ou ld in th e fu tu re be bu dg et ed under th e ju di ci ar y 

ra th er th an th e leg islativ e. Th e pre se nt arr an gem en t is illo gic al. The mo ney is 

appro pri ate d to t he Lib ra ry of Con gress, but th e book s are pu rc ha se d by th e Libr ar ia n of th e Su prem e C ou rt w ith th e ad vice an d th e as sistan ce of th e M em be rs 

of th e C ourt a nd th e dis bu rs em en ts a re mad e by th e M ar sh al of th e C ou rt. The y 

are als o in th e ph ys ical po sse ssion of th e C ourt .”

Th e Lib ra ri an of Co ng res s ha s st ate d th a t he ha s no ob je ct io n to th e ch an ge .

(P . 71, hbA ring s, Su bc om m itte e on th e C om m itte e on A pp ro pr ia tio ns , Ho use of “

R ep re se nt at iv es , legisla tiv e bra nch ap pro pri ati ons for 1962.)

Detail ed justific at io n

An ap pro pri ati on of $35,0 00 is re ques te d for ‘‘Bo oks for th e Su pr em e C ourt ” 

fo r fisc al yea r 1963, a decrea se of $3 ,000 o ve r th e 1962 appro pri at io n fo r th is ite m . .

Our es ti m ate s for fiscal yea r 1963 ar e as follow s:

C ontinuat io ns:

C it ato rs , codes , co ng ressiona l he ar in gs , co urt re po rt s, di ge sts, en cy ­

clop ed ias, lega l pe rio dica ls, loos ele af se rvice s, po ck et s up pl em en ts,

session law s, st atu te s, e tc ______________________________________ $28, 500

Ne w bo ok s an d ad di tion al m ate ri als _____________ ______________,L_ 6, 500

T ota l esti m ate ____________________________________ _____ ______ 35, 000

The est im ate for “ co nti nuati ons” re pre se nts th e sa m e am ount re ques te d an d 

ap pro pri ate d for th e fiscal yea r 1962. The e st im at e fo r new bo ok s an d ad di tion al 

m at er ia ls re flec ts a $3,000 de crea se fr om th e am ount re qu es te d and ap pro pri at ed 

for th e fiscal yea r 1962. Thi s was a no nr ec ur ring item re ques te d to pu rc ha se 

se ts o f th e htew “ Mode rn Fed er al Pra cti ce D ig es t.”

Mr. Rooney. As has just been stated by Mr. Bow, this was previously in the4egisltftive bill and was transferred to this budget by direction of the Subcommittee on Appropriations for the legislative branch, 

of which Mr. Bow is a member.

Is the language exactly the same as it was previously set forth?

Miss Zucconi. It has changed.

Mr. Rooney. In what respect and why?

Miss Zucconi. This is on page 44, Mr. Chairman, and I do not 

have the old language with me.

Mr. Justice Clark. This is on the appropriation for books.

Mr. Rooney. Apparently all that has been done here was to 

strike out the language “ * * * to be a part of the Library of Congress * *

Miss Zucconi. That is correct.

Mr. Justic e Clark. I suppose they would have to change the 

language some in order to take out any surplusage.

Mr. Rooney. Also, the language “ * * * and purchased by the 

Librarian * * It looks all riglit to me.

Mr. Justice Clark. The purpose was only to transfer the purchases from one budget to the other.

Mr. Rooney. Are there any questions on the matters we have 

covered up to now with regard to the Supreme Court?
115

EFFE C T IV E N E SS OF B IR D PR O O FIN G

Mr. Magnuson. What is the status of the birds over at the Supreme 

Court?

Mr. Justice Clark. They are gone.

Mr. Rooney. They really have left?

Mr. Justice Clark. Yes, sir. We had them for a while, I understand, in the courtyard but they are gone.

Mr. Lippitt. Occasionally a small bird gets up there.

Mr. Justice Clark. We hope they are not in your place.

Mr. Magnuson. Does that system require much maintenance cost?

Mr. Rubel. No, sir; practically none.

Mr. Magnuson. Ts it electrical?

Mr. Rubel. Yes, sir.

Mr. Stewart. I might add, Mr. Chairman, that on the grounds 

here we have not seen a starling this year.

Mr. Magnuson. You mean for the whole Capitol?

Mr. Stewart. Yes, sir.

Mr. J ustice Clark. 1 notice that at the entrance to the building 

itself there is quite a difference and it has been most helpful not only 

from a sanitary but appearance standpoint, hi the long run, it will 

also save our marble. Tt was a good investment.

Mr. Rooney. We will proceed now to the item for “Care of the 

buildings and grounds.”

Care of the Buildings and Grounds

Object classification

[In thousands of dollars]

11 Personnel compensation:

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

Other personnel comp ensa tion........................................

1961 ac tual

184

44

1962 estimate

188

49

1963 estimate

194

49

»

12

25

26

31

Tota l personnel com pensation_____

Personnel benefits..........................................

Oth er services:

Oeneral annual repa irs_____________

Annu al painting___ _________ _____

Main tenance, air-conditioning s ystem ..

Pointing exterior stonework___ ____

Installation of bronze display cases.......

Lighting improvements....... ..................

Roof repairs____ _____ ___________

Clean and birdproof 4 inne r courtyards

Supplies an d m aterials_________________

Equipment, a nnual............. .........................

229

15

5

2

2

12

13

5

1

283 284

243

17

9

3 

2

10

4 

33

6

1

Total obligations.................................................................. 327

Personnel summary

1961 a ctual 1962 estimate 1963 estimate

To tal num ber of perma nent positions...... .......................... ........ 33 33 33

Average n umber of all employees________________________ 33 33 33

Numb er of employees a t end of year ___________ _________ 33 33 33
116

Program and financing

[In thou sands of dollars]

1961 actual 1962 estim ate 1963 estimate

Program by activities:

Structu ral and mechanical care of Supreme Court Bldg, 

and grounds, including supplying of mechanical furnishings a nd e quipment (tota l obligations)...................... 283

4

284 327 Financing:

Unobligated balance lapsing.............. ..................... .........

New obligational a uth ority (app ropriation)................. 287 284 327

Mr. Rooney. The final item today, gentlemen, is to be found at 

page 359 of the justifications and it is entitled “Care of the building 

and grounds, Supreme Co urt.”

The justifications concerning this item are to be found at page 21 

through 35. We shall insert at this point in the record these pages 

which indicate tha t the request is in the amount $327,000, an increase 

of $42,600 over the appropriation for the current fiscal year.

(The pages follow:)

Statem ent relating app rop riation estimate to current appropr iation

1962 appropria tion in annual ac t........................................................................................................ $284,400

Base for 1963___ ___________________________________________________________ 284, 400

Net difference, 1963 over 1962:

Requirements

1962 appropriated

1963

estimate

Difference, 

increase 

(+ ) or decrease (—)

Care of building and groun ds.............. . ........ ............. $284,400 $327,000 +$42,600

Total estim ate for 1963................... . .................. ......... ......... . ............................ . ................ 327,000

State ment showing analysis by object

Object 1962 estimate 1963 estimate

Increase (+ ) 

or

decrease (—)

11 Personnel compensation.................................. ....................... $237,100

700

3,600

12,300

9,000

3.000

1,800

150

$243,200

700

3,600

12,300

9,000

3,000

1,800

150

10,000

3,600

32,900

+$6 ,100 12 Personnel benefits:

Paym ent to employees’ life insurance f un d....... ...........

Paym ent to employees’ health benefits f u n d .. ............

Contribution to retirement fund ....................................

25 Other services:

General annu al repairs.................... ................................

Ann ual painting ___________ ________ ___________

Mainten ance, air-conditioning sys tem ...........................

Snow removal____ ________________________ ____

Pointin g exterior stonework__________ ______ _____ +10,000

+3,600

+32,900

-10,000

Installation of bronze display cases............... . ..............

Lighting improvements..... ........... ...... ..........................

Roof repairs_____________________ ______ _____ _ 10,000

6,000

750

26 Supp lies and materials___ _________________ ______ 6,000 31 Eq uip me nt: Annua l......................... . ................. 750

To tal .................................................................... 284,400 327.000 +42.600
117

Sum m ary of increased req uirements fo r 1963

N atu re of expense (or sa vin gs) :

1. D ed uc tio n fo r th e non re cu rr in g co st of re pai rs to roo f au - Am ou nt

th or ized in 1962__________________________________________ — $10, 000

2. Cos t of wage ra te ch an ge s au th orize d by Pu blic La w 76 3____ 6, 100

3. To co mplete poin ting of ex te rior ston ew or k of th e Su prem e

C our t Build ing (n onre cu rr in g)____________________________ 10, 0 00

4. For th e in st al la tion of bron ze di sp lay ca ses (n onre cu rr in g)___ 3, 600

5. Im pr ov em en t of light in g as follow s:

Referen ce Desk Se ction of B ar L ib ra ry _________________ 12, 600

2 room s ad jo in in g Referen ce De sk Sec tion______________ 8, 600

E ast an d wes t co nferen ce ro om s________________________ 11, 700

T ota l co st of im pr ov em en ts (n onr ec urr in g)___________ 32, 900

N et increa se , 1963 ov er 1962_________________________ 42, 600

JU ST IF IC AT IO N

Objectives

T hi s ap pr op ri at io n, for e xp en di t ure b y th e A rc hi te ct of th e Cap itol , is to pr ov id e 

for th e st ru ctu ra l an d m ec ha ni ca l ca re of th e U.S. Su pr em e C ou rt Building an d 

gr ou nd s, incl ud in g m ain te nan ce an d ope ra tion of m ec ha ni ca l eq ui pm en t. The 

A rc hi te ct pe rfor m s his duti es unde r au th o ri ty of th e act of M ay 7, 1934 (48 S ta t. 

668).

The mec ha nica l equip m en t includ es su ch ite m s as the a ir c on ditio ni ng , re fr ig er ation, an d ven tila ting sy st em s w ith mo re th an 1,000 p iec es o f equip m en t; e lect rica l 

tr ansf orm er st ati ons; 300 pl um bin g fix tures an d re la te d pi pi ng ; 8 el ev at or s an d 

5 du m bw ai te rs ; elec tric fixt ur es an d wirin g.

A force of 33 em ploy ee s is re qu ired for th e fiscal yea r 1963 to co ve r 3 sh if ts 

da ily an d is mad e up of 1 su pe rv isin g en gi ne er ; 1 fo re m an , 3 mec ha nics, 5 a tt e n d ­

an ts and 4 ass is ta nt a tt e n d a n ts in th e hea ting , ven tila ting, ai r- co nd itio ni ng an d 

re fr ig er at io n depart m ent; 1 elec tric ia n fo re man an d 3 el ec tric ia ns ; 1 st ea m fi tter - 

plu m be r fo reman , 1 st eam fi tt er an d 1 st ea m fi tt er -p lu m ber ; 1 el ev ato r mec ha nic 

fo re m an a nd 1 m ec ha nic; 1 m ar ble m as on ; 1 wo od wo rk finish er a nd p ain te r; 1 oiler 

an d gr ea se r; 1 la bore r- gar den er fo re man and 2 gr ou nd s m ai nte nan ce m en ; 1 

su bst ati on he lper ; 1 st ore kee per an d 2 ge ne ral labo rers.

De tailed jus tif ications

The following ta ble is a co m pa riso n of th e co st of fu ll-tim e em pl oy m en t and 

o th er obje ct s of ex pen diture s fo r th e fiscal yea rs 1961, 1962, and 1963; als o of 

sa vin gs r ea liz ed in 1961:

Actu al, 1961 Es tim ate, 1962 Estim at e, 1963 Em pl oy ­

men t 

Se ptem ­

Pos i­ be r 1961

tio ns

Manyears

Co st Pos itio nsManyears

Co st Positio ns

Manyea rsCo st

Pe rsonne l comp ensatio n:

Fu ll- tim e em plo ym en t___________ 33 33 $228,684 33 33 $237,100

47,300

33 33 $243, 200 33

Oth er ob jec ts of 

ex pe nd itur e_____ 54,483 83.800

Sa ving s..................... 4,033

Tota l est im ate or 

ap pr op riat io n.. 287,200 284,400 327,000

Personne l comp ensation (in cre ase d from $237,10 0 to $243 ,20 0), $243,20 0.— Thi s 

allotm en t prov ides for 33 po sition s, th e same nu m be r as all ow ed for 1962, 2 of 

wh ich ar e co m pe ns ated under th e Classif ica tio n Act of 1949 , as am en de d, and 

31 on a pr ev ailin g wag e- ra te ba sis un de r th e pr ov isions of Pu blic La w 763, 83d 

Co ng res s. For 1963, an in cr ea se of $6,100 is requ es ted to m ee t th e co st of wa gera te ch an ge s au th or iz ed by Pub lic Law 763.

Pa ym en t to em plo yee s’ life ins uran ce f u n d (no chan ge), $700 .— Thi s ite m is th e 

same as all ow ed for 1962 an d is re qu es te d to co ve r th e co st of G ov er nm en t in su ran ce c on trib ut io ns re qu ired b y P ub lic Law 590, 8 3d C on gress, “Fed er al E m pl oy ee s’ 

G ro up Life In su ra nc e Act of 19 54 .”
118

Payment to employees' health benefits fund (no change), $3,600.—This item is the 

same as allowed for 1962 and is requested to cover the cost of Government contrib ution to the employees’ health benefits fund required by Public Law 86-382, 

86th Congress, approved Septemb er 28, 1959.

Contribution to retirement fu r d (no change), $12,300.—This is the same as allowed 

for 1962 and is requested to cover the cost of Governm ent con tiibutio n to retirement fund required by Public Law 854, 84th Congress, “Title IV, Civil Service 

Ret irem ent Act Amendments of 1956.”

General annual repairs (no change), $9,000.—This is the same as allowed for 

1962 and provides for the regular annu al repair and structura l upkeep of the 

building and its mechanical equipment, such as repairs to elevators, roof, carpentry, electrical, plumbing, heating, ventilating and steam equipment, kitchen 

and oth er miscellaneous equipment, and general structura l repairs and improvements. It also provides minor repairs on the grounds, such as repairs to fountains, 

drains and catch basins, lawn sprinkler system, and paving.

Ann ual painting (no change), $3,000.— This is the same as allowed for 1962 and 

provides for necessary painting throughout the building.

Maintenance, air-conditioning system (no change), $1,800.—This is the same as 

allowed for 1962 and provides for the annual care and main tenance of the airconditioning and refrigeration systems. The breakdown of the estimate follows; 

A ir-conditioning estiniate

Maintenance:

Air filters___________________________________________________ $500

Oil an d grease_______________________________________________ 100

Cleaning equipment__________________________________________ 100

Pa int______________________________________________________ 100

Refrigerants_________________ 100

Contingency for special rep airs_________________________ 300

Miscellaneous_______________________________________________ 100

Rep airs:

Refrigera tion____________________________________ ___________ 300

Automatic controls___________________________________________ 100

Miscellaneous_______________________________________________ 100

Total estimate_____________________________________________ 1, 800

Snow removal (no change), $150.—This is the same as allowed for 1962 and 

provides for snow removal from walks and approaches.

Pointing exterior stonework (nonrecurring expense), $10,000.— Allotments, 

tota ling $36,000, were allowed for the fiscal years 1960 and 1961 for pointing 

the exterior stonework of the Supreme Court Building. Most of the exterior 

stonework was pointed under these allotments. There remain to be pointed, 

in order to complete the work, pa rt of the Maryland Avenue side of the building 

and the four inner courtyards. An allotm ent of $10,000 to complete this work is 

requ ested for the fiscal year 1963, for the proper preservation of the building.

Installation of bronze display cases (nonrecurring expense), $3,600.—The Marshal 

of th e Cou rt, in his estimates for 1963, has resubm itted a reque st for funds for the 

purchase of eight bronze display cases to be used in exhibiting historical documents 

in the main corridor, ground floor, of the U.S. Supreme Court Building.

If this item is allowed by the committe e for 1963, then it will be necessary to 

provide $3,600 under the estimates of the Architect of th e Capitol for the cost of 

installation of these cases. In order to install these cases, it will be necessary 

to cut thro ugh the marble floor to make the necessary electrical connections, 

install a marble wainscot 3 feet 9 inches high to support the cases, and fasten the 

cases into the joints of the wall by the use of anchors, bolts, and washers.

The estim ate is based on $2,800 for the marble wainscot: $200 for the anchors, 

bolts, and washers; $400 for skilled labor for cutting joints and drilling marble; 

and $200 for electrical materials.

Lighting improvements (nonrecurring expense), $32,900.— At the direction of the 

Chief Justice, an estimate of $32,900 is submitted for the fiscal year 1963 to 

improve the illumination in the reference desk section of the bar library and two 

adjoining rooms on the third floor, an d in the east a nd west conference rooms on 

the first floor.

The existing lighting in these areas is primarily of a decorative chara cter, 

generated by chandeliers installed at the time the building was co nstru cted. The 

chandeliers are ornate and architecturally appropriate, bu t the illumination 

produced is grossly inadequate for the activities of the occupants.
Refer ence desk section of bar libr ary

The referenc e desk o f the b ar libra ry is a larg e roo m, 36 by 36 fee t, with a 2 7-foot ceilin g he ight, co mplete ly de vo id of da yl ig ht . The pr es en t illu m in at io n is pr o­ vide d by a sin gle ce nt ra l ch an del ie r of orn am en ta l de sig n, to ta ll y in ad eq uate for th e ne ed s of th is ar ea . The av er ag e illu m in at io n a t th e working plan e now is 1 fo ot -c an dl e or less. The wa lls ar e finish ed in dar k w al nut pa ne lin g, an d th e de co ra tive ceiling ha s li tt le re flec tive ca pa ci ty . Se ve ral de sk lam ps are prov ided for th e oc cu pa nt s a t th e re fe renc e desk, b u t th es e are se rio us ly det ri m en ta l to ey es ig ht be ca use of th e high brigh tn es s contr ast be tw ee n th e de sk level an d th e 

ba ck gr ou nd en vi ro nm en t. U nd er th e fu nd s re ques te d fo r 1963, it is pr op os ed to in st al l ei gh t 50 0- watt ce ilin g- m ou nt ed down ligh ts w hi ch will pr ov id e an av er ag e ill um in at io n on th e wor ki ng plan e of 30 fo ot -c an dl es . The d ow n ligh ts will be rec essed in th e ceilin g in th e lo ca tion of ex isting ai r su pp ly outlet s an d will be co nc ea led by orn am en ta l ro se ttes ha vi ng 5-inc h apert ure s fo r lig ht em iss ion. The ex isting ai rd uc ts will be en la rg ed to house th e new do wn ligh ts an d to pr ov id e adequate sp ac e for airflow. To co m pe ns at e for th e addit io nal he at load gen er at ed by th e 50 0-watt lamps , th e su pp ly ai r te m pera tu re will be lo we red by th e a dditio n of a di re ct-e xp an sion coil in th e main su pp ly duct . To al le vi at e bri ghtn es s contr ast s, co nt in uo us row s of flu oresce nt tu bes will be in st al le d on to p of th e pro je ct in g molding on th e 

fo ur walls. Two rooms ad joining reference desk section

Ther e are tw o ad jo in in g ro om s on op po site sid es of th e referenc e desk se ction which ar e als o in ad eq ua te ly lighte d by tw o ex isting orn ate ch an de lie rs. I nd er th e fu nd s re qu es te d for 1963, it is pr op os ed to remov e th es e tw o ch an de lie rs an d to in st al l tw o new orn am en ta l ch an de lier s de sig ne d to pr ov id e ad eq uat e ill um in atio n, both di re ct an d in di re ct .

Ea st an d west conference rooms

In th e tw o conference room s, th e general ill um in at io n pr oduce d by th e ex isting ch an de lier s is ab out 5 fo ot -c an dl es , a va lue fa r below pre se nt -d ay st andar ds fo r ro om s of th is ch ar ac te r. The wa ll pa ne lin g is dar k w alnu t of low refle cti ve va lue, an d th e refle ctan ce of th e high ly orn at e ceilin g is also quite low as co mpa red to th a t of a white ceiling. T he high ly de co ra tive ch ar ac te r of th e conference roo m ce iling s pr es en ts a se rio us pro bl em for pro pe r lig ht in g. T he reco mmen de d ill u­ m in at io n level for co nferen ce ro om s in ge ne ral, wh ere th e re ad in g of re port s an d oth er pri nte d m att er is p art of th e ac tivi ties of th e oc cu pan ts , is 25 foot-can dles 

a t th e working plan e. U nder th e fu nd s re qu es te d fo r 1963, it is pr op os ed to in st al l co nt in uo us row s of fluo re sc en t tu be s on to p of th e p ro je ct in g molding in th es e room s, with su itab le refle ctors de sig ne d to d ir ec t th e artificial ligh t ov er t he enti re s ur fa ce o f t he c eil ing an d th en , by refle cti on , to tr an sf er a po rtio n of th e ce iling illu m in at io n to th e wor king level. Th e co m bi na tion of th e ex isting illu m in at io n obta in ed fro m th e tw o ex is ting o rn am en ta l ch an de lier s an d th e su pple m en ta ry ill um in at io n refle cte d fro m th e ceiling will pr od uc e 12 to 15 fo ot -c an dl es of illu m in at io n on th e ta ble to p. To pr od uc e a level of 25 fo ot -can dl es in th e co nferen ce room s wo uld re qu ire a co stly in st al la tion of ce ili ng -m ou nt ed do wnlight s arc hitec tu ra lly in co rp or at ed in to th e ex isting ceiling ro se ttes . Be cause of th e hig h co st of th is ty pe of in st al­ la tion , th e flu orescent in st al la tion prop os ed in th e 1963 es ti m ate s is reco m men de d.

Breakdow n of estimate

Referen ce de sk sec tio n: In st all ati on of 8 do w nl ig ht s, includ ing wiring to ne ar es t pa ne lbo ar d _________________________________________________________ $4, 500

In st all ati on of fluo resc en t tu be s, includ ing wiring to nea re st pa ne lbo ar d _________________________________________________________ 5, 100

Air- co nd iti on ing alt era ti ons an d addit io ns_______________________ 3, 000

T o ta l____________________________ ______________ ____________ _ 12 .600

2 ro om s ad join ing referenc e de sk section: In sta ll ati on of 2 orn am en ta l

ch an de lier s________________________________________________________ 8, 600

E as t and west co nferen ce room s: In st al la tion of fluo re sc en t tu bes , in ­ clud in g wi rin g to ne ar es t pa nel boar d, di m min g eq uip m en t, an d oth er ac ce ssories _________________________________________________________ 11, ~00

Tota l est im ate ________________________________________________ 32, 900
120

Supplies and materials (no change), $6,000.—This is the same as allowed for 1962. The item provides supplies and materials for the structur al and mechanical care of the building: heating, plumbing, electrical, carp entry, hardware, and 

other general miscellaneous supplies.

It also provides supplies and materials for the care of the grounds: plant material, seed, soil, sod, sprays, fertilizers, and other miscellaneous supplies.

Annual equipment (no change), $750.—This is the same as allowed for 1962 

and provides tools, mowers, brushes, miscellaneous equipment, and repairs to 

same.

The total therefore requested for the care of the Supreme Cou rt Building and 

Grounds for the fiscal year 1963 under the Architect of the Capitol amounts to 

$327,000.

SU M M ARY OF RE Q U E ST

Mr. Rooney. At page 23 is to be found a summary of the increased 

alleged requirements for 1963 and this is the item in which is to be 

found $3,600 of the display case money. What about this, Mr. 

Stewart?

Mr. Stewart. Mr. Chairman, may I present a short statement I 

have prepared containing a summary explanation of our items?

Mr. Rooney. Yes, surely.

Mr. Stewart. There is an increase of $6,100 for wage rate increases 

authorized by Public Law 763, 83d Congress.

Mr. Rooney. Nothing can be done about that.

Mr. Stewart. We are asking a nonrecurring item of $10,000 for 

pointing exterior stonework. Allotments totaling $36,000 were allowed 

lor the fiscal years 1960 and 1961 for pointing the exterior stonework 

ol the Supreme Court Building. Most of the exterior stonework was 

pointed under these allotments. There remain to be pointed, in order 

to complete the work, part of the Maryland Avenue side of the 

building and the four inner courtyards. An allotment of $10,000 to 

complete this work is requested for 1963 for the proper preservation 

of the building.

The sum of $3,600 is requested for installation of eight bronze 

display cases, and we have discussed tha t item.

L IG H T IN G IM PR O V EM EN TS

We are asking a nonrecurring item of $32,900 for lighting improvements requested by the Court for areas now inadequately illuminated:

$12,600 is to improve lighting conditions in the reference desk section 

of the bar library; $8,600 for two rooms adjoining the reference 

desk section; $11,700 for the east and west conference rooms. *

The breakdown of the estimate is given on page 34 of the justifications and a more detailed explanation on pages 30 to 34, inclusive.

If there are any questions, I have with me my coordinating engineer,

Mr. Rubel, who prepared the lighting estimate and is familiar with •

the details. If there are any questions on this item, he will be happy

to answer them.

Mr. Rooney. Very well, M r. Rubel.

Tell us why this work cannot be deferred until next year.

Mr. R ubel. Mr. Chairman, the lighting over there is the original 

lighting installed approximately 30 years ago. It is primarily decorative lighting, decorative for architectural purposes and not suitable 

for utilitarian purposes. For instance, the lighting in this room in 

which you are now holding these hearings is in the order of 60 foot-
121

candles, whereas the lighting in the reference desk section of the 

Supreme Court Building now averages about 1 foot-candle. In other words one-sixtieth of what you have in this room. The reference desk section is an extremely dark area and employees working there frequently refer to card index files and other printed matter. There are tables in the reference desk section intended for reading hut the lighting is not adequate for this purpose, and the same is true in the conference rooms. They are highly decorated rooms, beautiful rooms from an architectural standpoint, but they are insufficiently 

lighted to permit reading without eyestrain. You asked me why this work cannot he deferred and I cannot say tha t it could not possibly be deferred a year, because they have been existing with it for many years, but the condition is very bad and 

should not be allowed to continue.

Mr. Rooney. This is the first time we have ever heard anything 

about this.

Mr. Rubel. I know you realize th at 30 years ago, when this building was built, artificial lighting was not considered a very important subject. In fact, there was no adequate lighting equipment available for producing good lighting without altering the architectural ap­ pearance of the space. Since that time the public in general has become accustomed to better lighting, not only because it is easier to 

read but also because it is protection for their eyesight.

Mr. Rooney. This means you have to get new chandeliers?

Mr. Rubel. Yes, sir; in two spaces, and add supplementary lighting in the other areas. The proposed installations are rather expensive because of the highly decorative character of the rooms.

Mr. Rooney. I am glad you said that, because I was afraid to 

suggest it was expensive.

Mr. Rubel. It is, sir. It is expensive, but we have to contend with very ornate ceilings, with painted decorations and gilded orna­ ments. The walls are of dark walnut paneling and the architectural features must not be adversely affected by the lighting changes. It would be unforgivable to hang commercial fixtures and ruin the esthetics of the building. What new lighting is added must be done in a very subtle manner so that good light is obtained without realizing 

the source of its origin. That runs into money.

Mr. Marshall. How much detailed reading work is done in this 

conference room?

Mr. Rubel. They hold conferences about once a week I understand. The Justices hold conferences periodically and people from foreign countries attend these conferences and reports are presented. There is a large conference table, larger than this table, and reports are read and discussed. I think they do that perhaps about once a 

week.

Mr. Marshall. What percentage of their time is spent reading 

material over there in the conference room? Would you say half of 

the time?

Mr. Rubel. Of their weekly time?

Mr. Marshall. I assume th at this Conference Room is a room that 

is just what it says it is. It is where they hold conferences.

Mr. Rubel. Yes, sir.
122

Mr. Marshall. As far as the use of the room is concerned, you have 

explained that, but I wondered what percentage of the time they spend 

in these conferences would be spent reading something?

Mr. R vbel. Well, it is hard for me to answer that because I have 

never been present, sir. I would say, however, they spend at least 2 

horn’s continuously in this room and perhaps longer.

Mr. Marshall. You think the lighting is such that in that 2 horn’s 

time they would be spending there, that would handicap them?

Mr. Kvbel. I do, sir. Yes, sir.

Mr. Marshall. That is all, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Rooney. Mr. Bow?

Mr. Bow. Reference is made here to the bar library and the two 

adjoining rooms on the third floor and the east-west conference room 

on the first floor.

How much of this is going to go to that conference room on the 

first floor and how much of it goes to the bar library and the two 

adjoining rooms on the third floor?

Mr. Henlock. Page 34 covers that point.

Mr. Bow. 'Phe east-west conference room. This apparently is the 

one you are speaking of where the justices meet?

Mr. Rvbel. Yes, sir.

Mr. Bow. That is $11,700?

Mr. Rvbel. That is for the two conference rooms.

Mr. Bow. This is the east and west conference rooms. Then you 

have the reference desk section and that is $12,600 and to what extent is this reference desk section used by the bar?

Mr. Rvbel. It is used every day, sir.

Mr. Bow. How many people are using it? What is your count?

Mr. R vbel. There are eight employees in the reference desk 

section who work there every day.

Mr. Bow. They are the ones who get the books down off the 

shelves for the lawyers. They are not reading there constantly?

Mr. Rvbei . On the contrary, most of their time is spent in extensive 

research work, requiring constant use of their eyes. Then there are 

visitors who come in during the day. I have never personally taken 

count of how many people come in daily.

Mr. Bow. There are not many people. I have been there.

How do you measure the light in this room?

Mr. Rvbel. We measure it by means of this meter [indicating].

Mr. Bow. Hav e you ever used that meter to measure the light in 

the offices in the New House Office Building the Members have?

Mr. Ritbel. Yes, sir.

Mr. Bow. What do we get over there?

Mr. Rvbel. It is poor lighting over there.

Mr. Bow. What do we get there?

Mr. Rvbel. About 10-foot candles.

Mr. Bow. What is considered good lighting for reading?

Mr. Rvbel. In the order of 50-foot candles, is considered good 

lighting for reading.

Mr. Bow. Each one of the Members’ offices is way under that 

standard of what you consider good lighting?

Mr. R vbel. Very deficient.

Mr. Stewart. It is planned in the alteration of those two buildings to bring the lighting up to standard.
123

Mr. Rubel. May 1 demonstrate this to you by turning off some 

of the lights in this room?

Mr. Bow. Please do.

Mr. Stewart. If your office is not an outside room, provided with 

a little outside light, in those two old buildings, you are unfortunate. 

Lighting in the interior rooms is bad, as many of the rooms are.

SU M M ARY OF A N N U A L IT EM S *

Mr. Chairman, 1 would like at this point to state for the record the 

annual items for which no increases occur. They are all the same as 

allowed for 1962 and are broken down as follows: $700 for payment 

to employees’ life insurance fund required by Public Law 590, 83d 

Congress, Federal Employees’ Group Life Insurance Act of 1954; 

$3,600 for payment to employees’ health benefits fund required by 

Public Law 86-382, 86th Congress, approved September 28, 1959.

Mr. Rooney. These are all in the justifications?

Mr. Stewart. That is right, but I have them summarized here 

and I thought my summary might be of some help to you: $12,300 

for Government contribution to retirement fund required by Public 

Law 854, 84th Congress, “ Title IV, Civil Service Retirement Act 

Amendmentsof 1956” ; $9,000 for general annual repair and structural 

upkeep of the building and its mechanical equipment ; also repair and 

upkeep of the grounds; $3,000 for annual painting, which provides 

for necessary painting throughout the building; $1,800 for annual 

maintenance and upkeep of the air-conditioning system; $150 for snow 

removal; $6,000 for annual supplies and materials for the structural 

and mechanical care of the building and grounds; $750 for miscellaneous annual equipment and repairs to the same.

V IS IT O R S TO BA R LIB R A R Y

At this point I would like to insert in the record a statement showing 

the number of readers and visitors who frequented the bar library 

during the past year.

1961 R ea der s V is itor s 1961 R ea der s V is ito rs

J a n u a r y .. ...... ................... 290 114 A u g u st ...................... ....... .... 269 192

F e b ru a ry .. ............ ............. 309 117 S ep te m b er............ ................. 283 139

M arch ___ 427 250 O ct ober __ 404 301

A pri l........................................ 323 187 N ovem ber........ ................... .. 330 181

M a y ........... ............................. 350 149 D ecem b er. . 275 172

302 309

J u ly ‘______________ ____ 74 50 T o ta l............................ 3,636 2,161

' Clo se d: Ju ly 10 th ro ugh J u ly 3 0,1961 .

Mr. Rooney. If there are no further questions, we thank you Mr. 

Architect and gentlemen.

This will conclude our hearings for the day.
124

CUSTOMS COURT 

Salaries and Expenses

Tuesday, J anuary 16, 1962.

W IT NE SS ES

H on . WEB ST ER J. OL IVER , CHIE F JU DGE

H on . SCOV EL RIC HARDSO N, JU DGE

H on . IR VI N C. MOL LI SO N, JU DG E

Object classificatio n

[In thou sands of dollars]

11

12

21

22

23

24

25

26 

31

Personnel compensation:

Perman ent positions____________________________

Positions other than perm ane nt__________________

Other personnel compensation___________________

Total personnel compens ation__ ________________

Personnel benefits________ ___________ _____________

Travel and transportation of persons__________________

Tra nsp orta tion of things_____________ ______________

Rent, communications, and utilitie s__ _____ __________

Printing and reproduction__________________________

Oth er services ._____ _______________________ _____ .

Supplies and materials___ __________ _______________

Eq uip ment..................................... . ......................................

Total obligations_________________________________

1961 actual

697

17

2

716

45

17

3

10

7

12

6

18

834

1962 estimate 1963 estimate

774

50

22

5

11

9

3

6

16

895

785

50

25

5 

11

9

13

6

15

919

Personnel summary

1961 actual 1962 estimate 1963 estimate

Total numb er of permanent positions_______ _____________ 89 92 92 Full-time eq uiva lent of other positions_______ _____ _____ 4 2 2

Average num ber of all employees................ ...... ........... . ........... 86 93 93

Nu mb er of employees at end of yea r._____ _____________ . 95 93 93

Program and financing

[In thousand s of dollars]

1961 actual 1962 estimate 1963 estimate

Prog ram by activities: Salaries and expenses (tota l obligatio ns )........ . ......... . ......... .................................................. ........ 834

7

895 919 Financing: Unobligated balance lapsing __________________

New obligational autho rity (approp ria tio n)............. ...... 840 895 919

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

This morning we shall consider the appropriation requested for the 

U.S. Customs Court.

This item is to be found at page 366 of the committee print and 

beginning at page 53 of the justifications.

We shall insert at this point in the record pages 53 through 60 of 

these justifications.

(The pages follow:)
125

Statement relating appropriation estimate to current appropriation

1962 a p p ro p ri ati o n in an n u al a c t................................................. ........... ....................... ...........................................$895,000

Bas e fo r 1963........................................................................................................................................................... 895,000

N e t differen ce , 1963 ov er 1962:

R eq u ir em en ts

1962 ap p ro ­

p ri ate d

1963

esti m ate

D iff eren ce , 

in cr ea se 

(+ ) or d ecre as e (—)

$895 ,000 $919,000 +$ 24 ,000

T o ta l es ti m at e for 1963________________________________________________________________ 919,000

Stateme nt showing ana lysis by object

•

O bj ec t 1962 esti m at e 1963 es ti m at e

In cr ea se ( + ) 

or

de crea se ( —)

11 Per so nnel co m p en sati o n .____ ____________________ ____ $774,000 

49,5 00 

22,0 00 

5,000 

10,600 

9,0 00 

3,100 

6,200 

15,600

$785,000 

50,2 00 

25,300 

5,00 0 

10,600 

9,00 0 

12,700 

6,200 

15,000

+$1 1, 00 0

+70 0

+ 3,3 00

12 P er so nnel ben efi ts __________________________ _______ _ .

21 T ra v el an d tr an sp o rt ati o n o f p ers o n s...... ............... ...............

22 T ra n sp o rt ati o n o f thin gs ______________ ________

23 R en t, co m m unic at io ns, an d u ti li tie s ____ ______________ .

24 P rin ti n g a n d r e p r o d u c t io n _____ ___________ _____ _

25 O th er se rv ic es _____ ___________________________ + 9,6 00

26 S uppli es an d m ate ri als _____________________________ ____

31 E q u ip m e n t__________ ________ __________________ - 6 0 0

T o ta l obligat io ns________________________________ _____ 895,000 919,000 +24 ,0 00

Su mm ary of increased requirements fo r 1963

Natur e of expense (or savings): Amount

1. Deduction for nonrecurring cost of equipment and furnitu re for

new personnel authorized for 1962________________________ —$600

2. Provision for within-grade salary advancements:

Compensation ________________________________________ 11,000

Benefits_____________________________________________ 700

11, 700

3. To cover increased subsistence (per diem) allowance for judges

and court personnel authorized pursuant to the Trav el Expense 

Act, as amended________________________________________ 3, 300

4. For supplement to the Customs Court Digest________________ 9, 600

Net increase, 1963 over 1962_____________________________ 24, 000

JUSTIFIC ATION

L a n g u ag e C h an g es

• None.

Ob je c tiv es

The estimate under this title is to provide for the salaries of the judges and 

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

expenses of the court, including trave ling expenses, expressage, communication 

services, printing and binding, supplies, equipment including furn iture, new books 

and regular continuations of reports, encyclopedias, digests, and pocket parts for 

various sets, and miscellaneous items of expense for the fiscal year 1963. For 

data as to the functions of the court, its jurisdiction and basic sta tutory authorities, reference is made to section G of the “Digest of Appropriations, the Judiciary ,” on file with the Bureau of th e Budget and the appropriations committees of 

Congress.
D etail ed J u n if ic a tio n

An appropriation of $919,000 is requested for 1963, a net increase of $24,000 over the appropriation for 1962. The increase in requirements for 1963 is explained below:

D ed u ctio n fo r N o n r e c u r r in g E x pe n s e s A uth oriz ed fo r 1962

The sum of $600, a nonrecurring sum in fiscal year 1962, representing the cost of equipment and furniture for new personnel authorized for that year, has been 

deducted from the equipment item for fiscal 1963.

P r o vis io n fo r W it h in -G ra de S al ar y Advancem en ts

It is estim ated that $11,700 will be required in fiscal year 1963 to grant court employees within-grade salary adva ncements corresponding with those provided 

by title VII of the Classification Act of 1949, as amended. Of the tota l requested, $11,000 is for personnel compensation and $700 for related agency contributions to the retirement fund and for group life insurance. The estimate is net of anticipated savings due to turn over and it represents the minimum amoun t that 

will be required to meet such costs in 1963.

I n crea se d S u b sis t e n c e ( P er D ie m ) Allow ance

Three thou sand three hundred dollars additional funds is requested due to 

the increase in per diem rate for judges and court personnel.

S u pp l e m e n t to C ust om s C ourt D ig est

Because of the specialized n ature of th e subject ma tter included in the Customs Law Digest there has been a limited demand among private law practitioners, 

law libraries, and other private sources for the Customs Law Digest and the suppleme nts thereto. The original Customs Law Digest was produced and paid for on a work and services basis, just as Sta te governments pay for compilations and revisions of their State sta tut es and session laws of their legislatures because of the limited demand for such sta tutory compilations and the high cost of edi­ torial services and printing, material, ink and other materials, and prin ting labor 

costs. The publishers of the Customs Law Digest originally estimated a 3 volume work of moderate sized volumes, but the resulting work was a 5 volume work of fairly large sized volumes. During the 4-year period of completion the pub­ lishers experienced many salary and wage increases and increased printing and 

material costs. After completion of the digest at the con trac t price to the Customs Court the publisher’s sale to private jiersons has been very modest; and of course there has been no sale to governmental sources since the Customs Court has distribu ted without charge or cost digest sets and supplements to five U.S. departm ents, three U.S. courts, several congressional committees, and several officers in the executive branch. In addition the Customs Court, in accordance with law, has distrib uted 150 sets of the digest to the Library of Congress for its use and for the purposes of its international exchange with foreign libraries. All of this has been done in addition to caring for the needs of the Customs Cou rt itself. Under the contract, the publisher was not obligated to make or produce a supp lement at its own risk or cost. There was only an expressed hope by the court and by the publisher th at the private sale of the Digest would be large 

enough to justify or encourage the publisher, from a business standpo int, to make and produce a supplement at its own cost. However, the sale of the digest has 

not been extensive enough, and the publisher has informed the Customs Court th at it could not make or produce the suppleme nt without a su bsidy or payment of some kind on a work-and-services basis. And for these reasons the court is compelled to include in its budgeta ry estimate the item for $9,600 for the annual 

supplem ent for the year 1962. Two volumes of Customs Court reports are pub­ lished each year and one volume of t he customs repo rts of the Court of Customs and Paten t Appeals. In addition, the customs decisions or action of the Supreme 

Court mu st be included in the Digest supplements, and all of these additional customs decisions must each year be digested and included and inte grated into
127

and made a part of the comprehensive digest system of the Customs Law Digest 

If this is not done annually, there will accu mulate many undigested volumes of customs decisions and the whole idea and usefulness of a law digest will be de­ feated or seriously impaired. In such event the judicial work of the judges of 

the Customs Court will be seriously impa ired and hampered.

IN C R E A S E R E Q U E S T E D F O R 19 63

Mr. Rooney. The justifications indicate tha t the request is in the 

amount $919,000 which would be an increase of $24,000 over the 

amount appropriated in the current fiscal year for the Customs Court. 

The list of increases is to be found at page 55 of the justifications. It 

would appear th at there are no additional positions requested; is th at 

correct?

Judge Richardson. That is correct.

Mr. Rooney. Do you wish to make a state ment with regard to 

this, Chief Judge Oliver?

Judge Oliver. I first want to apologize to the committee for not 

being here yesterday and also to express our appreciation to the committee for hearing us this morning.

W O R K L O A D

Each year in the course of the hearing questions are asked about 

the workload and we always say tha t we will send you down a chart, 

but today we anticipated this and we will now file with you here a set 

of copies of the workload for the last 5 years.

Mr. Rooney. We shall insert your workload chart at this point in 

the record.

(The chart follow7

s :)

11 orkload chart

Fiscal

year

Cla ssification

cases

received

R ea pprais em en t

cases

received

(appeals,

review s,

pet itio ns, 

an d reman ds of 

pro tests)

Tot al 

all cases 

recei ved 

in c ou rt

Cla ssification

cases

dec ide d

Rea ppraisem en t

cases

dec ide d

(appea ls,

review s,

pe titions, 

an d reman ds of 

pro tes ts)

Tot al 

all cases 

dec ide d 

in c ou rt

Cla ssificatio n 

cases 

pe nd ing 

at close 

of fiscal 

ye ar

Reappra ise ­

men t

cases

(appeals,

review s,

petitions, 

an d reman ds of 

pro tes ts) 

pe nding 

at close 

of fiscal

ye ar

To tal 

all cases 

pe nd ing 

at close 

of fiscal

ye ar

1957........... 24,670 16,427 41,097 19,931 25,410 45,341 136,3C6 76,215 212,521

1958....... . 25,047 27,283 52,330 38,478 16,299 54,777 122, 875 87,199 210,074

1959....... . 33,829 22,493 56,322 26,094 21,074 47,168 130,610 88,618 219,228

1960........... 33,397 20,031 53,428 50.336 32,499 82,835 113,671 76,150 189,821

1961_____ 28,212 26,917 55,129 47,098 12,973 60,071 94,785 90.094 184.879

Mr. Rooney. Do you have anything further?

Judge Oliver. Nothing further. Judge Richardson has the details

on this and he will explain them to the committee.

Mr. Rooney. Very well, Judge Richardson. You may proceed.

83455— 62----- 9
128

General Statement

Ju dg e Richardson. Mr. Ch airma n, we would like to express 

appre cia tio n on behalf of all of the judges for the con sidera tion shown 

our bu dg et req uest last y ear .

We are not making any request for add itio nal pers onnel or for sala ry 

ad justm en ts. The only increase we expect with res pect to pers onnel 

is t he am ou nt for within-g rad e salar y advance me nts a nd for the 'us ual 

benefits th at go along with emp loye e sta tus.

Th e wor kload ch art ind ica tes ou r work rem ains ab ou t the same as 

it was last yea r. There was a slig ht increase in the nu mber of cases 

receive d.

Th e numb er of cases rece ived in court in 1961 was 55,129 and the 

to ta l cases decided still rem ain s fairly high.

I explained las t year th at ou r figure of 82,835 cases disposed of was 

espe cially larg e because of th e disp osition of some key issues und er 

which sev eral tho usa nd cases have been suspen ded . Of course, the 

to tal of o ur cases is s till being reduce d and it is now 184,879 as again st .

189,821 the prev ious year.

P E R D IE M ALLO W ANCE

We ha ve asked for one increase so far as opera tions are concerned, 

and that is in the tra ve l accoun t, an increase of $3,300. This is to 

cove r the per diem allowance th at was aut horized in the 1961 Travel 

Expense Act.

Mr. R ooney. You are speakin g of the increase from $25 to $30 

a day?

Ju dg e Richardson. Mo re specifically the increase from $12 to $16 

a day. Tha t is pa rt of it.

Mr. R ooney. What is th e plan of the Customs Co urt with regard 

to the increase from $25 to $30 a day?

Ju dg e R ichardson. Well, there may be some increases in which 

expenses may exceed th e $25 a day, bu t we will try to stay w ithin it.

M r. R ooney. Are you fam ilia r with the fact th at the Jud icial 

Con ferenc e decided to set it at $25 a da y ra th er th an $30 a day, 

allow ed by law?

Ju dg e Richardson. I knew th at was the r uling b ut I did n ot know 

it was final. Fo r this next year, as I said , ours is bas ed princi pally 

upo n the days trav eled.

M r. R ooney. Is there an y reason why the Customs Co urt shou ld 

no t follow this decision of th e Jud icial Conference insofa r as saving *

mo ney is concerned?

Ju dg e R ichardson. No.

M r. R ooney. You plan to do so?

Judg e Richardson. Yes. «

M IL EAGE

M r. R ooney. With rega rd to mileage, wh at is yo ur position ?

I ref er to the increase from 10 cents a mile.

Ju dg e R ichardson. We a re still operating un der th e 10 ce nts a mile.

Air. R ooney. Do you pla n to do so in the coming year?

Ju dg e Richardson. We will coo perate with wh ate ver the decision 

of the Judic ial Conference is.
129

Mr. R ooney. Fine. That is exactly the answer we wanted on that.

Judge Richardson. As I say, ours is based principally on the per 

diem increase, based on the number of days a judge travels and the 

court reporter, who travels with him.

CU ST OM S LAW D IG EST

The only other increase in our budget is for the Customs Law 

Digest.

With the growing importance of our foreign trade, it is becoming 

increasingly important to have a digest and index of our decisional 

law and we are trying to continue to keep our supplements to the 

Customs Law Digest up to date.

Judge Mollison, who has appeared before you in other years on 

this matter, is here this morning and I will ask him to speak with 

respect to the justifications for the supplement.

Judge Mollison.

Mr. Rooney. Very well. You may proceed, Judge Mollison.

Judge Mollison. Mr. Chairman, first I would like to thank the 

Congress for giving us the money to get the Digest made. It took 

4 years to make the Digest and it was a worthwhile effort. We got 

the work done for $60,000 when it had been estimated by two very 

large publishers tha t it would take $100,000 to $125,000 to do this.

Since the Digest was published in 1960, we have had 1 supplement 

which concluded 12 volumes. That was paid for bv the $15,000 given 

us as a supplemental appropriation and since that supplemental 

appropriation we have had the 1961 supplement which has just been 

completed. We paid for that out of savings tha t the Customs Court 

effected out of the last appropriation; and in 1962 we will need another 

supplement.

Mr. Rooney. How much was th at supplement, Judge?

Judge Mollison. $9,600. We paid for tha t out of money tha t 

was generally appropriated and out of savings which were effected, 

but for the coming year we will need $9,600 to pay for this supplement.

We feel that the very essence of the Digest is to keep it up to date 

and make it really useful to the judges and other people. We feel 

tha t the Digest is not merely useful to the Customs Court. It is very 

useful to us, but we are distributing it without cost and without charge 

to other branches of the Government and the number of these Digests, 

including the supplement----- -

Mr. Rooney. Do you have authority in law to do that?

Judge M ollison. Yes, I think we have.

Mr. Rooney. What is the authority?

Judge Mollison. I cannot quote any section b ut I think—I think 

we do have the authority.

It was represented that when we got the Digest we would distribute 

certain sets to other branches of the Government if the Customs Court 

were allowed to make it. Lpon tha t plan, we have distributed two 

sets to the Ways and Means Committee, the Finance Committee, and 

one set to the Joint Printing Committee.

We have also given without charge sets to the Supreme Court, the 

Court of Customs and Patent Appeals, and the Court of Claims.

Mr. Rooney. How many sets of the original Digest did you get for 

the $75,000?
130

Judge Mollison. 300, of which, Mr. Chairman, we distributed 150 

copies to the Library of Congress. That is provided for by law, as well 

as the five Departments; Department of Justice, Department of the 

Treasury, Department of State, the Department of Agriculture, and 

the Department of Commerce.

(The following was subsequently furnished for the record.)

Three hundred digest set covered by the $60,000 original appropriation and the 

first supp leme nt, including 12 volumes (8 customs court and 4 appellate court), 

paid for by $15,000 from $18,000 supplemental appropriation, $3,000 unused of the 

supp lemental appropriation went back into the Treasury. So that for $75,000 we 

got th e 300 digest sets and 300 sets of the first supplement which included digest 

of 12 volumes. We distribu ted 150 copies to the Library of Congress; th at is 

provided for by law. We also dis trib uted digest sets in various numbers to the 

five executive departments.

We have also distributed a set to the Executive Office of the 

President and we have given the House library two sets, as well as 

the Senate library.

We feel tha t this is not only im portant to the court but important 

to all of the branches of the Government. The reason why we have 

to get the $9,600 is that the demand for the Customs Law Digest is 

rath er limited.

We have a limited number of practitioners who practice in our court. 

The number of sets sold by the publisher is relatively rather small and 

also the 300 sets provided for the court have been distributed to these 

agencies of the Government, including committees and so forth, and 

other courts.

This has reduced the demand for the Digest to tha t extent so th at 

the publisher is left to sell to private practitioners and any libraries 

tha t may have the money to buy such an expensive set of books.

We think tha t this is an expensive operation. It is a cumulative 

digest and supplement and you have to repeat in each supplement 

what has been previously included in the other supplements. It is 

a worthwhile effort and it is very valuable to the court. It is 

indispensable.

We think that we should get enough money given to us to continue 

this Digest and keep it up to date.

Mr. R ooney. Mr. Marshall?

Mr. Marshall. Yes, Mr. Chairman.

WORKLOAD

I have been looking a t your workload c hart and I note tha t under 

cases pending at the close of fiscal year, you had 184,879. 1 note

tha t you had total cases decided in court in 1960 of 82,835. In 1961, 

you had settled in court 60,071 eas?s, and this also shows tha t you 

had 22,764 cases less settled in court in 1961 than you had in 1960.

What is the reason for that?

Judge Richardson. As I explained it, Congressman, or at least I 

wanted to get over to you, the point, last year we had several key 

issues under which a number of cases were disposed. For instance, 

we may have any number of shiploads of certain merchandise which 

would come in over a period of months, and this will all involve the 

same merchandise and the same legal issue. The lawyers will agree 

on a test case and suspend the o ther cases. As time goes on, and the 

case is being tried, cases will continue to build up under tha t test
131

case. When the test case is disposed of, the Government, if it is 

satisfied without the decision going to the Court of Customs and Patent 

Appeals, or even the Supreme Court in some cases, will stipulate with 

the importers on these cases tha t were suspended so tha t thousands 

of them will be disposed of in one year.

It is not a normal situation where you will get the same number. 

The 82,000 in that group involved some 40,000 under one issue, 

such as the internal revenue tax involving distilled spirits.

Now, it is building up again in the case of what we call the M IT I

case—the Japanese Ministry of International Trade and Indu stry— 

there are a number of cases being suspended, and also under plywood. 

When those two key issues are disposed of, you will get another large 

group of cases that will come off in 1 year.

* One decision will dispose of thousands of cases sometimes, and it 

depends on what the buildup is under those te st cases as to how many 

and when you are going to get an unusual year, such as you did in 1960.

Mr. Marshall. I would like for you to estimate, if you could, how 

many you expect to have pending at the end of this coming year. 

Have you made any estimate along th at line?

Judge Oliver. Mr. Carey, can you help us at all on that? It is 

hard to project and you cannot tell how many new cases will be filed 

and how many will be disposed of.

Judge Richardson. Do you have any idea how many cases there 

are under the M IT I case?

Mr. Carey. The receipts are coming along just about the same as 

they have in the last year, and our decision work is a little bit under 

last year, so far, but what the next 6 months will bring is very hard 

to estimate. Using the first 6 months as a guide, you have the 3 

months in there which is the normal vacation period of July, August, 

and September, and normally you decide less cases in tha t period of 

time th an you do in the second period, the latter 6 months of the year.

I think we will pick up somewhat in our decision work in the la tter 

6 months of the year by comparison, but I think—and this is just a 

projection—we will probably have a few more cases pending at the 

close of this year than we h ad at the close of last year.

Our receipts are running fairly high.

Mr. Marshall. Some of these cases must have been pending for 

some time in order to build up your load of 184,000.

Judge Richardson. Sometimes they do.

Mr. Marshall. Are you carrying some there that for all practical

• purposes are still before you for consideration but actually closed?

Judge Richardson. No; when they are closed they come off. If 

you will notice in the sixth column there are 60,000 cases shown as 

decided in court in 1961 which is still a large number of cases disposed 

» of.

Jf you will look back at the years 1957, 1958, and 1959, when they 

ranged from 45,000 up to 54,000—-—-

Mr. Marshall. It seems to me th at that is still quite a backlog of 

cases tha t must have been quite old to have been there as long as 

they have.

Judge Richardson. You are right. You see what happens, Congressman, is that they can retry an issue a second time and sometimes a third time as they did in the internal revenue cases. One 

group of lawyers will take the position that the test case did not
132

contain certain information they have since been able to get abroad, 

and when the cases come off of these suspension calendars, they may 

sta rt a new case.

The Government likewise may start a new case.

Judge Oliver. In other words the doctrine of res judicata is not 

applicable in our court. They can try a new issue when they have 

new evidence or make a different approach to a claim.

Mr. Marshall. That is all, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Rooney. Mr. Bow?

E F F E C T O F A SSIG N M EN T OF A M E M B E R O F CO U RT TO A N O T H E R D IS T R IC T

Mr. Bow. Does your court sit en banc?

Judge Richardson. No; they sit in groups of threes on protest 

matters, and evaluation cases, we sit as individual judges.

On circuit, we sit as individual judges.

Mr. Bow. This backlog has not been reduced too much. What 

effect does the assignment of a member of your court to another 

district have on your caseload?

Judge Richardson. I do not know that I understand.

Judge Oliver. I understand the question.

Mr. Rooney. So do I.

Mr. Bow. Let us say one of the members of the court is assigned to 

another district for 30 days. Does tha t affect your caseload in any 

way? Why not?

Judge Oliver. Because when you talk about sitting en banc, cases 

on our calendar for the June term or whatever the month may be, if 

there are not the three judges present to sit as a complete division of 

three, one judge may be on circuit, the two judges who are there will 

sit and the case goes on just the same. On th at particular point you 

are making there, Congressman, tha t does not have any effect on it. 

There is nothing held up because of his absence.

k Mr. Bow. If he were on circuit work for the Customs Court in 

those cases, where the individual judge sits, he would be relieving your 

docket somewhat, would he not?

Judge Oliver. He would not be away from our court if he were 

assigned to any out-of-town dockets, of course.

This must be in the period when he would ordinarily be assigned to 

his monthly assignment in our court in New York. No judge would 

go away from our court or any other court—I am assuming generally 

all over the judicial system—if his work were not up to date or in 

shape, or he could not afford to go.

Mr. Bow. This record does not show your court up to date.

Judge Oliver. The statistics showing thousands of cases on our 

calendar do not mean trial issues. You know this from p ast explanations and you are familiar with tha t situation.

CUSTOMS LAW DIGEST

Mr. Bow. Yes, but what has been the total cost of this digest 

up to date?

Judge Mollison. Let me see; originally the amount appropriated 

was $60,000 and we got $18,000 and $15,000 of it was spent for the 

first supplement. Then we paid $9,600 out of t hat money tha t we 

saved and th at comes to $84,600.
133

Mr. Bow. You have had how much up to date?

We can anticipate supplements coming each year, can we? $9,600 

is something we can look for each year?

Judge Mollison. Yes. Maybe not $9,600 exactly but it might be.

Mr. Bow. Somewhere in tha t area?

Judge Mollison. It would be less than that, we hope.

Mr. Bow. You have no anticipation at this tune tha t the sales will 

be sufficient to handle the supplement?

Judge Mollison. Not the way it is going. I made an inquiry last 

Friday as to how many sets have been sold by the publisher.

Mr. Bow. Who is the publisher?

Judge Mollison. Bobbs-Merrill Co., Inc., of Indianapolis, Ind.

* Mr. Bow. Are we subsidizing them some for the printing of this 

set?

Judge Mollison. I think this is a subsidy.

Mr. Bow. What credit do we get for those that they sell?

* Judge Mollison. We do not get any credit of any kind and the 

only thing we accomplish is tha t the court gets the digest made. 

Otherwise, the publisher has refused to make it at its own account, 

and its own cost; if we do not subsidize it, then we will not get the 

supplement.

Mr. Bow. How many sets have they sold?

Judge Mollison. 201 sets.

Mr. Bow. Have been sold by Bobbs-Merrill?

Judge Mollison. Yes.

Mr. Bow. What do they sell for?

Judge Mollison. $150 less 5 or 6 percent discount. We are 

talking about the ordinary individual.

Mr. Bow. 200-some sets, and how many published?

Judge Mollison. 300 were published and given to the Customs

Court under contract. They have sold under their own efforts 201 

sets up to December 31, 1961.

Mr. Bow. That would be a total of 500-some sets published?

Judge Mollison. Yes. Incidentally, tha t is the estimate. When

the court was investigating this matter before we got into the contract 

stage, the estimates not only of Bobbs-Merrill, but other publishers, 

were that 300 or 400 sets would saturate the field so far as the demand 

in this matter is concerned. That included the demand by the 

agencies of the Government. As a matter of fact, the 200 sets tha t

* have been sold over and above, we will say, the governmental amount 

of 300, is quite an excellent sale. This is a hard matter to sell at $150.

We have a copy here of the digest I would like to show you.

Judge Oliver. I think the Congress would recognize tha t the

» ordinary lawyer would have no need or use for this unless he were

practicing customs law. It is a highly specialized line.

You might go to any one of a hundred lawyers and you will never 

find a set of our reports o r digest there because they have no need for 

them at all.

Mr. Rooney. Five volumes make up the set?

Judge Mollison. Yes, sir.

I wanted to say originally tha t the publisher thought this work 

would be about three volumes of less size than these here [indicating] 

but they thought it also would take 3 years to make the set. It took 

4 years and resulted in the five volumes of, roughly, 4,500 pages in all.
134

Here [indicating] is a copy of our 1961 supplement and this is a 

cumulative supplement. It includes everything tha t has gone on in 

the previous supplement and with the additional cases in the current 

issue.

Here is a document tha t answers your questions about sales. The 

original digest set covered the first 33 volumes of Customs Court 

reports and the first 42 volumes of the appellate customs courts.

The digest when published had taken 4 years to make, and we naturally 

were way behind on the coverage in the original volumes of the set 

and that is the reason why we had to get $15,000 to make the first 

supplement which more or less rendered us able to cope with the 

situation from year to year.

Mr. Bow. I would assume tha t if we do not continue the supplements, we would tend to make your present sets and what you have v

already spent obsolete?

Judge Mollison. I would say tha t is a fact.

Mr. Bow. Once starting it, we are pretty much in the position of 

either throwing this down the drain or keeping i t up; is tha t right in *

your opinion?

Judge M ollison. I am afraid tha t the publisher, being in business 

for profit and for the stockholders, simply will not make it without 

some sort of a subsidy.

Under the present sale of the digest, they have been able to sell 

200 sets which are a reasonable number, ft is a good number and 

they made a big effort to sell it.

Mr. Bow. What do they get for the supplement?

Judge Mollison. I think $15 but I would say the price is reasonable 

because the cost of printing is so high, to say nothing of other kinds of 

paper costs, ink, and materials, and editorial costs.

Mr. Bow. How much is it costing the court over and above the 

actual printing cost of these supplements? Do you have anybody 

assigned to work with the editors on this to furnish them materials?

Do they do tha t themselves?

Judge M ollison. The court has no employee or employees assigned 

to work with the editors of Bobbs-Merrill and the court does not 

furnish materials to the Bobbs-Merrill Co., Inc. The company does 

all the work of making the digest, editorially and otherwise.

Mr. Bow. They are doing the editing and nobody from your court 

or staff is contributing time or effort to the Bobbs-Merrill Co., Inc.?

Judge M ollison. No, sir. The only thing we do is to select certain cases which are to be digested. There are certain cases that have «

nothing in them which is legally digestible and we eliminate them and,

therefore, save tha t money.

Mr. Bow. Is this done by the court?

Judge M ollison. Tha t is done by the court. The selection is done «

by the court.

Mr. Bow. That is all. Than k you.

TR AV EL EX EM PT IO NS

Mr. Rooney. What effect, if any, has the reduction in the amount 

of exemptions had on the work of the court?

Judge Oliver. I do not think I quite understand.

Mr. Carey. The travel exemptions?
135

Mr. Rooney. Yes.

Mr. Cakey. None a t all.

Mr.. Rooney. Thank you very much, gentlemen. 

Judge Oliver. Than k you, Mr. Chairman.

Study of R ules of Practice and Procedure

Tuesday, J anuary 16, 1962.

W IT NES SE S

H on. E. BARRET T PRETTY M A N, U.S. CIR CUIT JU DG E, U.S. CO UR T

„ OF AP PE AL S. D IS T R IC T OF CO LU MBI A

B Y R O N R. WHI TE , D E P U T Y ATT ORNEY GE NE RA L, DEPARTM ENT OF

JU ST IC E, W ASH IN GTON, D.C.

Mr. Rooney. We shall now revert to the item in the budget of the 

Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts, which concerns the Committee on Rules. We shall bear the advice of the distinguished judge 

from the District of Columbia, Judge Barrett Prettyinan and the distinguished Deputy Attorney General, Byron White.

Will you please proceed, gentlemen.

General Statement of J udge Prettyman

Judge Prettyman. Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the committee, my name is E. Barrett Prettyman and I am a U.S. circuit judge in 

the U.S. Court of Appeals, but 1 am here this morning in my capacity 

as the Chairman of the Advisory Committee on Appellate Rule of the 

Judicial Conference, United States.

I have before me a prepared statement which will not take very 

many minutes to read.

Mr. Rooney. Proceed in your own fashion, Judge.

Judge Prettyman. The two great criticisms of the judicial process 

in this country are: one, delay, and two, expense. It takes too long 

and costs too much for people to get their rights decided and their 

disputes settled by the court. Many people make speeches and 

many writers write learned articles on these subjects.

The situation is known and condemned.

There are two causes for undue delay and unnecessary expense. 

• One is lack of judges and the other is less than efficient procedures.

The Congress has attempted to meet these at present in the way of 

the need for judges in the Federal system. This would be a great 

step toward the cure of that need and the project we are here to disi> cuss this morning is one tha t the Congress has directed and the

Judicial Conference of the United States has pu t into motion, which is 

a major effort to work out curative steps for the causes of these defects; 

tha t is, in the rules of procedure.

Congress has directed tha t the Judicial Conference examine the 

rules of procedure of the courts and tha t it set up a continuous study 

of those rules and make suggestions from time to time for improvements in the interests of economy, efficiency, and fair determinations.

The statute is now codified—28 U.S.C. 331—and accordingly the 

Chief Justice by direction of the Conference appointed a standing 

committee on rules and five advisory committees.
136

These committees got well underway during the past year and they 

are now in full swing.

A sixth advisory committee is contemplated and which I shall 

explain in a moment.

This sort of project costs money, as the Congress must well know, 

when it directed tha t it be done. These committees are composed of 

judges and outstanding lawyers from all over the country. They 

serve without pay and none of the money we suggest you supply goes 

to any member of these committees.

On their part this is an uncompensated public service, and if this 

work is to be done, skilled staff work and plenty of it is essential.

I venture to suggest that you gentlemen of Congress could work 

yourselves into complete nervous breakdowns and still not do more v

than a fraction of the load of work upon you if you did not have

adequate, competent staffs to do the spade work and attend to the 

formalities of arranging schedules, printing, consultations, and all of 

the work necessary to put proposed legislation into shape where you *

can consider it and decide on it.

Similarly, this business of making and improving procedures in the 

Federal courts, we do not need money for the judges and lawyers who 

will do the considering and deciding, but we do need money for staff 

people who will gather the vast quantities of data we need and arrange 

it, analyze it, reproduce it, and otherwise supply us with the wherewithal for decided improvements, if any are needed.

Last year we asked and you gave us $81,000 and that was a forecast 

of our first full year’s work in this m atter. It is not enough if we are 

not to prolong this task beyond the necessities.

We are asking for $45,000 more, and I would like to outline the 

basis for the request.

I will leave the arithmetic and the calculations to the experts in 

those fields, but T turn first to the new undertaking now under consideration by the standing committee. That is the preparation of 

uniform rules of evidence for the Federal courts.

Astonishing though it is—it was to me when I realized it—the 

Federal courts do not have uniform rules of evidence except in the 

vaguest, most general sense.

The rule governing the admissibility in civil cases is rule 43(a) 

that evidence shall be admitted if it is admissible (1) under the statutes 

of the United States, (2) under the rules applied before 1938 in Federal 

courts in suits in equity, and (3) under the rules of evidence applied in «

the courts of the State in which the U.S. court is held.

The rule says tha t the competency of a witness to testify shall be 

determined in the same way.

The rule in criminal cases, rule 26, says: ♦

Admissibility shall be governed in the absence of a sta tute “by the principles of 

common law as they may be inte rprete d by the courts of th e United States in th e 

ligh t of reason and experience.”

In admiralty cases, there are a great many specific rules concerning 

admiralty law, although they do not contain the general rule on 

admissibility. The courts in admiralty cases decide on their own rules.

Generally speaking, the general law of evidence has been relaxed 

somewhat. In bankruptcy cases, the rule is tha t the rules will be 

followed as nearly as may be possible. Needless to say, the rules of
137

evidence now in use in the Federal courts need clarification, simplification, abbreviation, and modernization.

Strong recommendations to that effect have been made by eminent 

people ever since the day of William Mitchell, who spoke on the 

subject in 1938.

Chief Justice Warren this past year named the Chairmen of the 

five Advisory Committees with Professor Moore as chairman of a 

special group to recommend whether an effort should be made to write 

uniform rules of evidence for the Federal courts. Tha t special committee had a study made by Prof. Thomas Green of the University 

of Georgia Law School and it has made a tentativ e recommendation 

tha t the project is feasible, desirable, and ought to be undertaken.

It will be expensive.

The second undertaking which accounts for much of the requested 

increase is one which the Civil Rules Committee made. One of the 

principal features of the Federal civil rules is the discovery procedure.

This is an outstanding part of the trial of a civil lawsuit in the 

Federal law courts today. The rule has been in effect for 20 years 

and its value is hotly debated. By some it is vehemently debated as 

a waste of money, time, and energy, and others say vigorously it is 

the greatest conceivable boon to litigants.

How has it really worked? Is it really worthwhile? Does the 

present process need revision?

The advisory committee on civil rules is undertaking to find out, 

but it decided it would not rest an answer on the offhand opinion of 

any body or bodies, or on the experience of any one lawyer or one 

judge.

The committee wants to know what the facts are. This is a vast 

job of basic research. The committee secured the services of a research organization of Columbia University and secured a gian t of 

$120,000 from a private foundation. They proposed to examine the 

records of more than a dozen district courts for the past 20 years and 

to try to persuade a sizable number of practicing lawyers to open their 

files for inspection.

The gathering of the raw data in the field will cost the Government 

relatively nothing, but the analysis of all this material and its synthesis into conclusions should and will be done by highly competent 

assistants to the committee itself. These people must be paid. The 

proper sort of help at this stage of the undertaking will be expensive. 

• Besides these two special and expensive projects, all the advisory

committees have found tha t the estimates made before the work 

began were too low. This is partly the normal human failing the first 

time on a trip or a suit of clothes or a house or an atomic missile or an 

9 atomic bomb. Secondly, we were somewhat amazed at the confusion,

complexity, and controversy we encountered. I felt, for example, th at 

the preparation of a few rules to govern appeals in tax cases would be a 

simple task of a few hours by a few tax experts. I tried it. I discovered that there are many people with many ideas on this relatively 

small subject, and we are now about to circulate our second general 

draft.

So it goes.

The work being done by the advisory committees may be briefly 

summarized.
138

The present admiralty rules were promulgated in 1921. There has 

been for a long time a strong belief that these rules ought to be integrated into the civil rules, so an admiralty case will be tried as a 

civil suit is tried. But a myriad of details is involved. Some opposition is also involved in that proposition. Regardless of whether 

tha t integration proves feasible or not, the admiralty rules need 

revision in many respects—the scraping of a 20-year accumulation of 

barnacles off the old ship.

The Bankruptcy Committee is charged with the study of the general 

orders and forms. They have not been examined overall since 1938.

Meantime, the act itself has undergone many changes. The committe e already as an emergency matter has recommended changes in 12 

general orders and 32 official forms. These are noncontroversial 

changes. The committee is continuing its studies into such matters *

as greater expendition of small asset cases, possible supervision of 

lawyers’ fees, better handling of petitions to pay fees in installments, 

and other actions in the interest of efficiency and accuracy.

The Civil Rules Committee, besides its new project on discovery, 

has gone all out in the study of the existing rules. These have been 

in effect since 1938, which is 24 years. They are regarded as highly 

successful, but they have soft spots and are otherwise subject to 

improvement. Many such possibilities are undramatic but important 

in the smooth operation of the courts. Such matters as pretrial in 

protracted cases, substitution for retired public officers, service of 

process on a nonresident, bette r definition of judges, appeals in m ultipar ty actions, and many others.

The Advisory Committee on Appellate Rules has undertaken to 

write a system of uniform rules for the appellate courts. Again, very 

astonishingly, there are no uniform rules of procedure in the appellate 

courts, except two or three that are in the civil rules. The advisory 

committee has as its objective the elimination of expense and delay 

on appeals. There is much criticism of delay and expense of appeal 

in Federal courts. They are directing their attention to the records 

and directing their attention to briefs. They are directing their 

attentio n to these matters in ordinary cases, and then a special study 

for in forma pauperis cases in which the litigants are indigent.

Then we have a special project in appeals from administrative law 

cases, as to which there are many statu tes and many different sorts 

of appellate procedures in different kinds of cases. They ought to be 

uniform, and the advisory committee is undertaking t hat project.

Th at is a thumbnail sketch, Mr. Chairman, of what the rules com- «

mittees are attempting to do.

Mr. Rooney. Very well. Thank you, Judge Prettyman.

Mr. White?

o

General Statement of D eputy Attorney General White

Mr. White. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, I am 

here in two capacities. One, I have been a member of the Advisory 

Committee on Civil Rules since its formation, and two, I am representing the Department of Justice. I have left a prepared statem ent 

with the reporter. Since it may be somewhat repetitious, I will not 

follow it but will mention one or two or three points.

Mr. Rooney. Excuse me, Mr. Attorney General. Have you 

copies of that statement?
139

Mr. White. Yes, I have.

(Mr. White’s prepared statement follows:)

In the absence of Judge Maris, the Chairman of the Committee on Rules of Practice and Procedure of the Judicial Conference of the United States, and of Dean Acheson, the Chairman of the Advisory Committee on Civil Rules, I am making this appearance to urge this committee to support the work of these com­ mittees on the revision of the rules of judicial procedure in the various courts of 

the United States. The work being done by the Committee on Rules of the Judicial Conference and its advisory committees is of paramount importance for the improvement of 

the administration of justice in the United States. The rules now in effect in the courts need continuing reconsideration as new uncertainties and conflicts arise in litigation. For example, in the proposed amendments to the rules now being considered, rule 58 is being clarified to spell out exactly what constitutes the entry of a judgment. The Government had to 

litigate this particular issue all the way to the Supreme Court, United Slates v. 

Schaefer Brewing Company, 356 U.S. 227 (1958).

But a very significant portion of the work of these committees is not just clarify­ ing existing rules. The civil rules need not only continuing attention but, in addition, two special projects have been initiated. These concern, first, a factual stud y of the actual manner in which discovery procedures are in use in litigation and, second, the development of a uniform code of evidence for use in the Federal courts. The admiralty rules are in urgent need of drastic revision and unification. An important issue under study is the feasibility of integrating the admiralty and civil rules. The appellate courts of the United States a t present are all operating under their own rules. It is widely believed tha t it would be desirable to have uniformity prevail in the procedure used in our courts of appeal. These rules are being worked out with the purpose of economizing in the expenses of litigents 

and in saving the time of b oth the litigants and the judges. The Supreme Court has said that changes in rules, however urgent, are not a 

matter to be handled by th e lower courts. Miner v. Atlass, 363 U.S. 651 (1960). 

By 28 U.S.C. 2072, the power was given to the Supreme Court to prescribe the general rules of civil procedure in the district courts. The Chief Justice is to report suggested new rules to Congress. Such rules take effect 90 days after such reporting. (Same for admiralty rules, 28 U.S.C. 2073.) Those persons who advise the Court on amendments to the rules are the members of the Judicial Conference Committee and its advisory committees. Thus the basic work must be done in these committees. The spirit to work creatively and the willingness to devote the necessary time is present among the distinguished members of these 

committees. However, they do need financial support. The Government has a very large stake in the successful performance of these committees. As a matte r of principle, we should encourage any arrangements that will lead to a smoother operating and more efficient judiciary. We should further encourage the participation of members of the bar and other interested persons in arriving at our continuing objective of a fair and speedy administration of justice. The United States is by far the most important litigant in the Federal courts. The latest figures th at we have are those in the Annual Report for 1961 of the Director of the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts. According to the report, (p. VIII(l)-6), in the fiscal year of 1961, a total of 58,293 civil cases were filed in the 91 district courts of the United States. Of this total, 19,843 cases involved the United States either as plaintiff or defendant. Thus, almost one-third of the litigation in the district courts involves the Government. It is clearly to our interest tha t the procedures used in these courts be just, rational, and as 

economical as possible. Actual money savings obviously follow from improvements in the rules of judicial procedure. Litigation over procedural matters is reduced. Speedier trials are possible by eliminating doubts about these matters. Speedier trials and appeals are promptly trans lated into reduced interest charges on judgments 

and debts. For all of these considerations, therefore, I urge this Committee to consider 

favorably the appropriation of money to support this effort.

Mr. White. I shall just make two or three what I think are significant points.
140

One, the United States is by far the principal litigant in the U.S. 

courts. According to the figures for fiscal 1961, there were during 

that time 58,293 cases filed in the 91 district courts of the United 

States. Of this total, 19,843 cases involved the United States either 

as plaintiff or as defendant. Consequently, the United States and 

the Department of Justice have a great stake in the proper form and 

operation of the civil and criminal rules operative in the U.S. courts.

It is important to the United States tha t these rules be clear, simple, 

and just. It is important to the United States tha t litigation be 

economical and speedy. Actual money savings obviously follow 

from improvements in the Rules of Judicial Procedure. Litigation 

over procedural matters is reduced. Speedier trials are possible by 

eliminating doubts about these matters. Speedier trials and appeals 

are promptly translated into reduced interest charges on judgments >

and debts.

Secondly, I should like to say th at I have been very much impressed 

by the amount of work tha t has been donated by these distinguished 

members of these committees. All of the advisory committees are ■*

made up of representatives of the practice around the country and of 

recognized scholars in the field. I have been amazed to find out these 

men really devote a very large amount of time to the subject of the 

revision of the rules. There has been constant exchange of information, a great deal of paperwork exchange. 1 think the results have 

been very evident.

In the civil rules area, already a couple of changes, such as substitu tion of parties, have been adopted by the Supreme Court.

Another circulation of the committee is now out around the country 

to the Judicial Conference and the bar. I think great progress has 

been made.

Thirdly, I just want to add my support to these two special projjects to which Judge Prettyman called attention. As a rather recent 

private practitioner, I certainly was aware tha t there was a great 

controversy among the lawyers of the country about the operation of 

the discovery rule.

It always has been ap parent that you cannot find what the situation 

is in this area by the reading of cases, because much of it rests in 

practice, many decisions are never reported, and so much is done by 

stipulation between the parties. I think the field study which is being 

financed by private money will be of great utility.

Mr. Rooney. Who is financing that study?

Mr. Olney. The Ford Foundation.

Mr. White. The field work I think will be rather widespread. As 

the judge said, it will be expensive. It also will require a great deal 

of judgment to consume the results of t hat study. That is where it 

will cost the committee some money.

I also think the project on uniform code of evidence for the Federal ’

courts is a very important one. I participated somewhat at the outset 

in discussing this ma tter with Professor Moore and others. I think 

it is a very worthy project. I think it will be difficult to come up 

with a uniform code of evidence for the Federal courts because one of 

the governing principles which always has been evident is that practice 

in the Federal courts should conform, to some extent anyway, with the 

practice in the State courts. The way it is now, if there is a rule of 

admissibility applicable in the State courts, the Federal courts will
141

follow it. On the other hand, if there is an exclusionary rule in the 

State courts, they do not follow it. These rules in the Federal courts 

are toward admissibility rather than exclusion. I think there will 

be great debate on this, but it is a very worthy project.

Consequently, both as a member of the committee and as representing the Department of Justice, I certainly urge full support of this 

committee for the work of the Rules Committee.

Thank you.

Mr. Rooney. Thank you, Mr. White.

>

>

STA TUS O F FU N D S

Mr. Olney, have you the details with regard to the expenditures or 

expected expenditures of the $81,120 in fiscal 1962?

Mr. Olney. Yes, sir; I have. This is the stat us of the funds for 

1962 as of December 31, 1961.

Mr. Rooney. We shall insert this statement, the status of funds, 

at this point in the record.

(The statement referred to follows:)

Stat us of fun ds allotted for the stud y of rules of practice an d procedure as of Dec. 31,

1961

Available____________________________________________________

Obligations of reco rd:

Personnel compensatio n:

Administrative Office personnel_________________ $5, 199

Advisory comm ittees:

Civil Rules_______________________ $8, 948

Criminal Rule s____________________ 3, 100

Bankruptcy Rules_________________ 3, 412

Admiralty Rules__________________ 5, 149

Appellate Rules___________________ 3, 364

Rules of Evidence _________________ 8, 183

------------32, 156

$81, 120

Total, personnel compensatio n____________ 37, 355

Personnel benefits_________________________________ 1, 293

Travel____________________ 6,941

Communications__________________________________ 262

Printing _________________________________________ 2, 141

Duplicating (Administrative Office p rinting p lant)_____ 821

Other services____________________________________ 476

Supplies_________________________________________ 28

Total, obligations of re cord_______________________________ 49, 317

> Unobligated balance_____________________________________ 31, 803

o

PE R S O N N E L CO ST S

Mr. Rooney. How many personnel does this statement of status 

refer to? Most of this item is for personnel and printing.

Mr. Olney. Do you remember?

Mr. Airhart. No.

Mr. Olney. I have here the details as of November 30, 1961, as to 

exactly who is being paid and at what rate.

Mr. Rooney. We shall insert this statement of detail at this point 

in the record.

(The statement referred to follows:)
St ud y of rule s of practice and procedure— De tai l of a ctual and estimat ed oblig ation s f or per sona l services, fis ca l year 1962 as of No v. 30, 1961

In cu m be nt A pp oi nt m en t st at us

Service s re nd ered (pe r re po rts fro m comm itte es)

Fr om — To — Le ng th of 

serv ice

Actua l 

obligations to d ate

Estim at ed 

obligations 

balan ce 

of y ear 1

To ta l

estim ated

ob ligations

ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE PERSONNEL

Secretary, O S-7 , a t $5,520 per an num . Se cre tar y, GS -6, a t $4,830 per a nnum . Beck, Rose 0 __ Burgess, Qlenna. Per m an en t_____ _____________ ___ do ............................ - ............ — Ju ly ........do. 1,1961 Nov . 24,1961 ___ do ............. Fu ll t im e .— ___ do ........... $2,234.40 1,957.20 $3,314.40 2,975.00 $5, 548. 80 4,932.20

T ota l.........................

CIVIL RULES

Con su ltan t, un gr ad ed , $65 p er d a y .. .

Con su lta nt , un grad ed , $60 p er d a y .. . Ge neral at to rn ey , G S -l l, at $7,560 

pe r a nn um .

La w cle rk, tra inee , GS -9, at $6,435 

pe r a nn um .

Cl erk-ste nographer, GS-3, at $4,075 

per an nu m.

K ap lan, B e n ja m in .. ..

Sacks, Albert M ...........

Han dl er, J oel F . ..........

Pa yn e, Ancil N ., Jr.

Gre en, Co nstan ce R.

4,191.60 6,289.40 10, 481.00

T ota l.............................

CRIMINAL RULES

Con su ltan t, un grad ed , $50 p er d a y .. . C on su lta nt , un grad ed , $50 p er d a y .. .

B ar re tt, Edw ar d L .__

Co dings, Rex A ., J r . -

T ota l_________ ______

BANKRUPTCY RULES

Con su lta nt , un grad ed , $50 pe r d a y .. .

Leg al assistan t, GS-6, at $4,830 per 

an nu m.

Ken ne dy , Fr an k R . . . 

Erick son, James D —

Se creta ry, G S-3, a t $3,760 per a nnum .

Do.......................................................

Do.......................................................

Beem, M ild re d F . . . Ilolschlag, J ud ith K. Barke r, Carol A___

To ta l

In te rm itte nt (no t to exceed 130 da ys).

Te m po rary ......... ............ - ..........

.do------

do ................................................

In te rm itte nt (no t to exceed 130 da ys).In te rm itte nt (not to exceed 130 

days). Te m po rary wh en ac tu ally em ­ ployed (not to exceed 700

___ do ____ ___________________ ___ do ________________________ ___ do ............. . .................................

.do..do.

do.

Aug . 14,1961

Ju ly 11,1961

Ju ly 1,1961 

....... do ........... .

........do.............

........do..............

___ do............. Ju lv 10,1961 

Sept. 21,1961

Aug. 31,1961 

Ju ly 28,1961’

13 d ay s.........

20 days ..........

Nov . 24,1961 75 d ay s____

........do ............. 99 da ys .........

(’)780.00 960.96 

1,860.00 1,545.365,146.32

5,460.00 4,200.00

3,844.00 2,430. 40

15,934. 40

5,460. 004,980.00 

960.96

5,704.00 

3,975. 76

21,080.72

Oct. 31,1961 

___ do ............

28 da ys .........

15 d ay s____

1,400.00

750.00

2,150.00

2,800.00 

1,650.00 

4,450.00

4,200.00 

2,400.00 6,600.00

____d o.............

Oct. 27,1961

Aug . 1,1961 ‘ Aug. 15,1961’ 

No v. 24,1961

28 da ys ____

3 0 2 hou rs..3 hou rs____ 22 ho ur s___ 215>£ ho urs

1,400.00 

704.84

5.43 

39.82 

390.06 

2,540.15

2,800.00 

926.16876.94 

4,603.10

4,200.00 

1,631.00

5.43

39.82 

1,267.00 

7,143.25

a « » *
ADMIRALTY RULES

83 45 5— 62

Con su ltan t, un grad ed , $60 pe r d a y .. . Currie , B ra in er d-------

Legal assistan t, OS-6, at $4,830 pe r Bo oth , Ch arles H ........

an nu m .

Se cre tarial service (D uk e U niv ers it y). _____________________

In te rm itte nt (not to exceed 130 

da ys).

Tem po ra ry ----------------------. . . . .

Reimbu rsab le se rvices ________

o

T o ta l..............................

APPELLATE RULES

Con su ltan t, un gr ad ed , $60 pe r d a y .. .La w cle rk, OS-9, at $6,435 pe r an ­

nu m .

Ward , B er na rd J .......... In te rm itte nt (no t to exceed 130 days).

Phi pp ar d, James R . . . Tem po ra ry ....... . ............................

do.

do.

To tal

RULES OF EVIDENCE

Con su ltan t, u ng rade d, $60 per d a y .. .Atto rn ey , OS-11, at $7,560 pe r an ­

nu m.

Legal assistan t, OS-5, at $4,345 per 

an nu m.

Clerk -ty pi st, OS-3, at $3,760 per 

an nu m.

Green , Tho m as F ____Fin k, How ard P _____

In te rm itte nt (not to exceed 130 da ys).

Tem po ra ry ____ ______________

Wi llia ms , Ro na ld C .. . Te m po rary wh en ac tu ally em ­ plo yed (not to exceed 700 hours).

Ro sentha l, Do ra O................do ......... .......... ...........................

T ota l............

Grand total.

Ju ly 1,1961

....... do ______....... do .........____d o______

........d o.............

Aug. 17,1961 Aug . 14,1961

No v. 30,1961

Sept. 4,1961

Sept. 30,1961

46 da ys ____45 d ay s.........

3 m o n th s.. ..

2,760.00

838.80

505.00

3,780.00 6,540.00

838.80

2,020.00 1,515.00

4,103.80 5,295.00 9,398.80

Oct. 31,1961 40 da ys ......... 2,000.00 4,000.00 6,000.00

Sept. 17,1961 55 da ys ......... 1,364.00 1,364.00

3,364.00 4,000.00 7,364.00

Sept. 30,1961 56 da ys ......... 3,360.00 4,440.00 7,800.00

No v. 10,1961 85 d ay s......... 2,475.20 4,804.80 7,280.00

Sept. 28,1961 7 4 ^ hours ... 155.70 724.14 879.84Nov . 10,1961 72*4 hours ... 131.69 302.71 434.40

6,122.59 10,271.65 16,394.24

27,618. 46 50,843.56 78,462.01

i Est im at e based o n pat te rn es tablish ed du rin g 1st 5 m on th s of year. 1 N o re po rt of se rvices re nd ered , estim ate based on pre viou s ye ars service.

* Resig ned C.o.b. Ju ly 28,1961, pa id for 104 ho urs of acc um ulated a nn ua l leave.

< Resigned c.o.b. Aug. 17,1961. • App oi nt m en t te rm in at ed Aug. 15,1961.
144

RUL E S COM M IT TE E M EETIN G S

Mr. Olney. I have here also a list of the meetings of the Rules 

Committee between July 1 and December 31, 1961, showing the days 

on which they met and the number of committee members who were 

present. All committee meetings are in Washington, D.C., and have 

been from the beginning. There has been none elsewhere.

Mr. Rooney. We shall insert this statement with regard to meetings 

at this point in the record.

(The statem ent referred to follows:)

Rules Committee meetings, Ju ly 1, 1961-Dec. 31, 1961

Adm iralty Committee, 1 meeting Sept. 18 and 19, 1961 (all 14 members Da v»

pre sen t)_________________________________ ___________________ 2

Appellate Committee, 1 meeting Nov. 16 and 17, 1961 (13 members 

present, 1 member abse nt). (Reporter had been appointed , accounting 

for additional member)_________________________________________ 2

Bankrup tcy Committee, 1 meeting, Oct. 23 and 24, 1961 (11 members

prese nt, 3 members absent)______ _______________________________ 2

Civil committee, 1 meeting Sept. 8 and 9, 1961 (14 members present, 2

members absent)_______________________________________________ 2

Criminal Committee, 1 meeting, Oct. 30, 31, and Nov. 1, 1961 (all 12

members present)______________________________________________ 3

Standing committee, meeting______________________________________ None

Special Committee on Evidence, 1 meeting, Dec. 11, 1961 (6 members

present, 1 member absent due to illness)_______ 1

To tal________ ____________________________________________ 12

B A SIS FO R E ST IM A T E

Mr. Rooney. With regard to the request of $45,000 for fiscal 

1963, have you the details of those expected expenditures? Do 

you have a breakdown of the $34,000?

Mr. Olney. No, sir.

Mr. Rooney. How did you arrive at it?

Mr. Olney. By trying to estimate as best we could on the basis 

of the experience with the other committees. For example, on this 

ma tter of the rules of evidence, which has been mentioned here, at 

the present time there has been no committee appointed to make 

that study. We do not know how big it will be. Also, we do not 

know in advance exactly what they are going to need in the way of 

staff. Already work has been done in this field, for example.

Mr. Bow. This committee is appointed by the Chief Justice?

Mr. Olney. Yes, that is right. There have been two attempts to 

dra ft uniform codes of evidence for use in the States. The extent 

that work will be of use to this committee, we have no way of knowing. 

Not until the committee is actually appointed and has met will we 

have any clear idea of their needs. Yet we do know it will take 

money. They will have to have some staff.

Mr. Rooney. Was the study with regard to rules of evidence 

included in the $45,000?

Mr. Olney. Yes, sir.

Mr. White was asking me if I had made clear tha t this $45,000 is 

in addition to the $81,000.

Mr. Rooney. I understand that. How did you arrive at the 

$34,000?

f
145

Mr. Olney. We knew we were going to need an additional repo rter for the discovery w’ork and some additional staff there. W e know we are going to need an additional reporter and some additional staff for the evidence rules. On the basis of the experience we have had with other committees, tha t is as much as we have to go on. We came up with this figure as roughly what we would need.

Mr. Rooney. Will any of the studies be completed in fiscal 1963?

Mr. Olney. I do not believe so. I feel sure they will not be.

Mr. Rooney. Have you been able to ascertain the detail with 

regard to the printing matter we discussed yesterday?

Mr. Olney. No, sir.

Mr. Rooney. Mr. Magnuson?

EST IM ATED L IF E OF PR O JE C T

Mr. Magnuson. I notice the justifications say the Judicial Con­ ference has been directed by the Congress to carry on a continuous study of the operation and effect of the general rules of practice and procedure, and so forth. What is meant by “continuous” ? Will 

this be $45,000 every year?

Mr. Olney. No, I would not imagine it would be every year, but. it will be considerable amounts every year until the rules are in reasonable shape. It will take a long time to determine, for example, whether admiralty rules should be taken into the rules of civil pro­ cedure, and these other studies which have been mentioned here will 

take a long time.

Mr. Magnuson. Is the nature of the project such tha t it will go on forever? Presumably, changes could arise even after you complete your job.

Mr. Olney. No doubt.

Mr. Magnuson. There would have to be some further revision.

Mr. Olney. That is correct. Of course, the amount which has to be done will vary, no doubt, from year to year. Tha t is the language 

in the statute.

Mr. Magnuson. I understand.

Judge Prettyman. This is the first time there has been a major examination of these fields for many years. There is a bulge a t this point. I would think next year might cost more than this year, but after the bulge is over, we shall keep an eye on it from year to year 

and the cost will go down.

Mr. Rooney. Mr. Bow. Mr. Bow. I would like to say I am very much impressed by the statements this morning by judge Prettyman and the Deputy 

Attorney General.

R E D U C T IO N IN CO ST S TO L IT IG A N T S

Mr. Attorney General, you have suggested that by the adoption of these rules you m ay cut the cost to litigants. How will this be done? I have had the feeling right along tha t perhaps the cost to litigants and court costs were established many years ago and had not kept pace with the increases in other areas. If we are to have a further 

decrease in costs, that is interesting.

Mr. White. One area Judge Prettyman certainly can address him­ self to since it is his area. For years and years, records in appellate
146

courts have been printed. I think, if I am not mistaken, Judge, they 

are studying ways of simplifying the record in appellate courts.

Mr. Bow. I remember from m y days in private practice that many 

tunes a litigant was prevented from being able to take an appeal 

because of the great cost of printing the record. I can understand 

that.

Mr. White. This is one area where the cost to the litigant can be 

considerably decreased, in my opinion. I think the committee is 

working on that, is it not, Judge?

Mr. Bow. I would like to hear your comment on this, Judge. I am 

very much interested in it.

Judge Prettyman. It used to be, as you well know, the record had 

to be printed. The committee is studying that. There are quite a *

few things that can be done. No. 1 is to reproduce only that part of 

the record which the lawyers want the court to look at. In the 

District of Columbia in administrative law cases, it used to he lawyers 

had to designate the parts of the record they wanted printed as the *

first step in the appellate procedure. They filed the appeal and then 

designated the parts of the record they wanted the court to read.

Due to the human characteristic of lawyers, they put off until the 

last minute, absent a decision, what points they are going to make 

and what they wanted the court to read. We adopted in the District 

of Columbia a very simple little rule to have them designate the parts 

of the record they want printed after the briefs are in. The lawyers 

filed their brief and, after that, they designated what parts of the 

record they wanted the court to read. The savings in cost are unbelievable. We used to get printed records in administrative cases 

this long [indicating], 20 volumes of printed record. Now, under the 

new procedure, if we get one bigger than tha t [indicating], we think 

we are being imposed on. It is just that simple thing. This committee is considering introducing tha t rule all over.

Then another cost is illustrated by a case which just came to my 

attention from Mr. Olney the other day. In indigent cases the cost 

rests on the Government. In an indigent case, a fellow appeals and 

demands a copy of the transcript. This is a dramatic and extreme 

example, but it illustrates the point. North Dakota had a criminal 

case in which there were 20 defendants originally, and 12 were convicted, all indigent. Ten appealed and demanded a copy of the 

transcript. The transcript was 16,000 pages. The cost of getting 

just one copy of the reporter’s transcript was----- - 

r

Mr. Olney. Around $20,000.

Judge Prettyman. It was somewhat over $20,000. The advisory 

committee is already dealing with that subject. There are a great 

many modern methods of reproducing transcripts. We have gone out 

and gotten information on all this to see whether it is possible to have 

the reporter use for his typing some kind of reproduction which would 

be less expensive in and of itself but which would also be used for 

reproducing such parts of the record as eventually the court is wanted 

to read. That takes a lot of inquiry into the mechanics. Those are 

things tha t are being done.

Mr. White. I might also say tha t earlier last year the question 

was, What are you going to do about substitution of parties resulting 

from the change in administration? The rule then provided that each 

litigant had to make a motion within 6 months. The rule was changed 

and laid before Congress 90 days before June 20, to make sure that 

substitution was automatic. This saved the Department of Justice
147

and the Government and private litigants, I think, a lot of time and 

a lot of money. I would also say that probably one of the most expensive costs of 

litigation results from uncertainty about the meaning of a rule. When you have to litigate up to the Supreme Court on a procedural matter, it is expensive, and the Department of Justice has done this recently 

on the question of what is an entry of judgment. I think clarity in the rule saves people money and simplicity of 

rule saves people money. In the civil rules, anyway, an awful lot of the lawyers on the Committee would like to urge making the rules 

as simple as possible. The study on discovery I would hope would make the discovery process much cheaper than it is now. It is a very expensive process now. Many times I think some litigants can 

afford the discovery process and other litigants cannot.

Mr. Bow. Under this system, you are now anticipating perhaps the 

adoption of uniform rules of evidence throughout the country?

Mr. White. The procedural rules are uniform in the Federal courts.

Judge Prettyman. No.

Mr. Bow. They are not completely. I know various situations 

where the rules were not the same as in the district in which I practiced.

Mr. White. The procedural rules applicable to Federal district 

courts are uniform around the country. They may be applied 

differently in one district from another.

Judge Prettyman. And the different courts have some local rules.

Mr. White. They have their own court rules.

Mr. Bow. This would be in anticipation of trying to get, as nearly 

as practicable, uniform rules throughout the country.

Mr. White. Right now the appellate rules are pretty well determined by the local court rules of the various circuits, as 1 understand it. Of course, this effort of the Committee will be to have uniform 

rules of appellate practice, which T think will he of great advantage.

Mr. Bow. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Rooney. Mr. Cederberg?

CO N G R E SSIO N A L AC TI ON ON R U LES CH A N G ES

Mr. Cederberg. Do I understand after an agreement has been 

reached on these changes in the rules and the Chief Justice reports them to the Congress, they automatically take effect 90 days after 

that reporting?

Mr. White. I think tha t is true.

Mr. Cederberg. Does the Congress have anything to say after 

they have been reported?

Mr. White. They have had in the past; yes.

Mr. Olney. Tha t is the purpose of submitting them.

Mr. Cederberg. Unless they are changed by the Congress, they 

automatically go into effect?

Mr. Rooney. The same as reorganization plans.

Mr. Cederberg. The same as the reorganization plans we work 

under now.

That is all I have.

Mr. Rooney. Thank you very much, Mr. Attorney General, Judge 

Prettyman, and gentlemen. That completes the hearings with regard to the Federal judiciary.

We shall meet again on Monday morning at 10:30, when we will 

see you again, Mr. White.

LIST OF WITNESSES

Face

Airhart, J. C____________________________________________________ 14

Anderson, D. H __________________________________________________ 14

Clark, Hon. T. C................... 103

Cowen, Hon. Wilson______________________________________________ 5

Carabedian , E. V________________________________________________ 14

Gauges, J. G____________________________________________________ 2

Henlock, C. A............... 103

Jackson, R. E ___________________________________________________ 14

Jones, Hon. Marvin ______________________________________________ 5

Lippitt, T. P................. 103

Martin, Hon. I. J ________________________________________________ 2

McGuire, Hon. M. F_____________________________________________ 14

Mollison, Hon. I. C_______________________________________________ 124

Oliver, Hon. W. J _____ _______ 124

Olney, Warren ___________________________________________________ 14

l’eartree, F. T___________________________________________________ 5

Prettyman, Hon. E. B ____________________________________________ 135

Richardson, Hon. Scovel__________________________________________ 124

Rubel, W. L ..................................... 103

Stewart, J. G____________________________________________________ 103

White, B. R ________________________ 135

Worley, Hon. Eug ene _____________________________________________ 2

Zucconi, D. R___________________________________________________ 103

(I)

J

IN D E X

B Pas®

Budget for 1963, compared with 1962_________________________ ____ - 1

C

Cou rt of Claims__________________________________________________ 5

f Repairs and imp roveme nts____________________________________ 13

Salaries and expenses_________________________________________ 6

Court of Customs a nd Pa tent Appeals______________________________ 2

t Cou rts of appeals, distric t courts, and other judicial services----------------- 14

Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts-------------------------------------- 65

• Increase in cost of o perating _______________________________

Positions, add itional______________________________________ 72, SO

Review of budget by judicial conference_____________________ 86

Rules of practice an d procedure:

Revision of__________________________________________ 73

Over obligation of fu nds___________________________ 74

Prin ting cos ts____________________________________ 75

Study of___________________________________________79, 135

Duration of pro jec t_______________________________ 145

Personnel costs__________________________________ 141

Status of f un ds__________________________________ 141

Assignment of ju dge s_________________________________________ 54

Bankruptcy cases____________________________________________ 94

Budget for 1963, compared with 1962___________________________

Cases filed, terminated, and pending____________________________ 30

Docket conditions of distric t courts_____________________________ 63

Employees, additional req ueste d_______________________________ 30, 33

Facilities for new jud ges______________________________________ 34

Fees of jurors and commissioners_______________________________ 36

Fu rnitu re_______________________________________________ 54, 86, 102

Judgeship legislation, add itio nal costs to implement----------------------- 32

Parking fees _________________________________ ______- ............... 54

Referees:

Expenses of_____________________________________________ 95

Parking fees___________________________________________ 102

Salaries of_______________________________________________ S9

Retired judges, supporting personnel for_________________________ 49

Salaries of judges_____________________________________________ 16

Salaries of sup porting personnel------------------------------------------------- 20

. Tra vel and miscellaneous expenses______________________________ 40

* Assignment of judges_____________________________________ 54

Nonrecurring expenses____________________________________ 62

Customs Co urt____________________________________________________ 124

Customs law digest_________________________________________ 129, 132

Workload_________________________________________________ 127, 130

S

Suprem e Court of th e United St ates ________________________________ 103

Automobile for the Chief Justi ce _______________________________ 112

Books for the Supreme Cou rt__________________________________ 112

Care of the buildings and gro unds______________________________ 115

Lighting impro vem ent____________________________________ 120

Miscellaneous expenses________________________________________ 109

Display cases____________________________________________ H I

Printing and binding Supreme Court Reports____________________ 10S

(in)