Evening star., 1914-11-10

George w. Evans submitted a Substi-
1utc report which was defeated by
unanimous vote after Matthew f.
D'Rrien had snoken in opposition TO II.
The report of the law committee
stated that it is believed litigants fare
better under the present system tnah
they would under the proposed salary
system The provision of the johnson
bill placing the rate of compensation
for the auditor. assistant auditor ana
stenosrapher at S21 a day was oo-
jected to on the ground that %! inns
arrangement the auditor would De
,-itbont ,utbority to waive his fees.
which The committee stated is done in
many instances.
Reasons for Present System.
\ summary of the fees charged by
the auditor was embodied in the re-
mort. which concluded with the follow
.nc reasons why the committee be-
!ieves the auditors office should not be
pIaced on 4 salary basis:
Al. No court either in England. IN
The. federal system or the states, it is
believed. adopts q salary basis. Why
t.y it in the District OF Columbia con-
trary 70 the wisdom and practice OF
all other jurisdictions"
80 To adequately fill the office the
auditor must combine the qualifica-
tionS of a first-claSs lawyer ana an
expert accountant, no man possessing
which combination of qualifications IN
any eminent degree can be secured Tor
such a salary as Congress will attach
TO the Office.
% The salaries paid the judges fur
nish no criterion of compensation. The
lure to acceptance of the judicial Of
flee is, first, that it is a lifetime posi-
ton. making provision for old age
secure; and. secondly, the honor and
social prestige which are supposed to
attach to that office, which lis suff1-
n induce
to accept 1t at great pecunlary sacrl-
fee. No such inducement exists and
no such sacrifice can be expected with
respect to the office of the auditor.
Needs Competent Men.
az. 1t is far more important to the
public that the office be filled by a
man of high competency and efficiency
than that the work should be done
more cheaply than if a first-class man
holds it.
petent or of a mediocre man in the
position will be very greatly to in
crease the labor of attorneys, who, of
course, must be paid for their time and
service, with the result that the cost
of litigation as a whole Will be in
creased rather than diminished and the
results obtained less satisfactory to the
parties concerned.
IS. With respect to the claim that the
compensation afforded by the office to
the predecessors of the present auditor
was less than at present, there was
no time when his immediate predeces-
Sor Gid not receive very much larger
compensation than the salary proposed,
and no time the office would have been
-ctained by him on the salary basis
proposed. Prior to this time, when
Judge Cox held the Office, the business
was slight. the duties We're performed
principally by the juniors in the Office
Of Judge Cox, and they constituted no
interference whatever with his large,
active and lucrative business as a
prac;icins lawyer.
Basis of Pay Equitable.
-. The basis of paying for the work
actually done is more equitable, fairer
and in every way preferable. The
business for a number of years has
been constantly and greatly increas-
ing. as will he the case in the future
Universal experience shows that SAL
aries prescribed by Congress do not in
crease, and the result of making the
auditor an underpaid officer will he
either to have him proportion the labor
performed to the compensa ton, with
the consequent congestion of the busi-
ness of his office, else to do a large
amount OF work for which he is not
paid
IS. Regulation of the charges is en-
tirely capable of being effected by
other and less Objectionable means
Conceding that there may be LAWYERS
subject to a timidity which would pre-
vent their excepting. in particular
cases, 70 charge or charges thought
capable of regulation by the court upon
the application of the Bar Association
whenever in the opinion of the bench
or bar such action may be necessary
Mr.. Evans Substitute.
In presenting his substitute for the
report and recommendations of the law
committee. Mr.. Evans declared he op-
posed the fee system in the auditors
office as Representative of the plain
people and not lawyer" He proposed
that the board favor u bill providing
that the auditor should be a bona fide
resident of the District of Columbia, a
lawyer and u practitioner before the
local courts for at least five years
prior to his appointment. His substi-
tute also provided that the auditor be
allowed to engage in practice not af-
Tecting the duties of his Office, and
that he receive salary of $1,000 4
year. His assistant or deputy, Mr..
Evans contended. should receive $4,000
a year and 4 stenographer $4,000. He
thought that S1,200 would be sufficient
for the general expenses of the office
Mr.. Evans said he believed there
should be no change i'll the presen,
system of determining the fees charged
by the auditor, which he said should
be LETT to the Supreme Court of the
District for determination and revision
from time to time may be required
in every case, and that each litigant
have the right to file his objection tc
the amount of fees in any case in which
he is individually interested. and tC
have a hearing by the court upon the
matter: the court finally to determine
. the amount to be allowed the auditor
Mr. Evans said the law should provide
that any excess revenues of the office
of the auditor should be turned into
the Treasury to the credit of the Dis
Irict of Columbia.
The present system. Mr.. Evans said
IS archaic. and after the auditor and
litigants' attorney have had bite al
the apple, there is nothing left but the
core and not much of that" He contend
ed that at the present time the net
emoIuments of the Office of auditor are