Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1914-10-21
OPPOSE A SALARY
FOR COURT AUDITOR
Bar Association and B. of 7.
Law Committee Uphold
+ Present System.
REASONS MADE PUBLIC
FOR LAWYERS STAND
They Insist Litigants Alone and Not
General Taxpayers Should Pay
Costs of Legal Proceedings.


Attorneys who practice before the
courts of the District of Columbia
men who associate at frequent inter-
walls with the auditor of the Supreme
Court of the District of Columbia in
attending to the affairs of litigants
whom they represent in legal ca
pacity-are practically unanimous IN
the belief that the present method by
which the office of the auditor is OPP
Grated Is the best under the c1rcum-
stances, and are opposed to the provi-
sions of a bill passed by the House and
now in the judiciary committee of the
Senate which would discontinue the
fee system and place the position on a
salary basis.
At a recent meeting of the Bar Asso-
citation of the District of Columbia the
changes proposed by this bill were
brought to the attention of the organl-
cation, which went on record in oppo-
sition to the measure. The board of
directors and committee on legislation
of the association now are at work pre-
pairing list of objections to the pro-
visions of the bill, which is to be pre-
sented to the proper committees or
Congress.
Inc law COmmlttee OIL tHe
ton Board of Trade, composed largely
of attorneys at law, also has gone on
record in opposition to the change pro-
posed by the bill. A report containing
a statement of the committees objec-
tions to the changes has been prepared
by the committee, of which A A. Blr-
ney is chairman; has been approved by
the directors of the Board of Trade, and
is to be submitted to the entire mem
bership of the Board of Trade for it's
consideration. probably at the annual
meeting November 9.
Personnel of Committee.
The law committee of the Board of
Trade consists of A. A. Birney, chair
man; Lorenzo A. Bailey. Colley w.
Bell. E. c. Brandenburg. Edward S.
Brashears, o. P. NJ. Brown, John G..
Capers. John Doyle Carmody, Roy c..
Clafiin, Myer Cohen, Fred G. Coldren,
Dean, William H. De Lacy, Julian c.
Dowell, William T. Fitzgerald, George
B. Fraser, Frank Fuller, William r.
Harr, Robert Scott Hume, Charles ".
ner. George r. Linkins, H. B. F. Mac
farland, Fred Mckee, Richard w. Nc
Mahon. l. Bert Nye. Matthew E..
0Bpien. George W. offutt. jrr;;, William
Richardson. NJ. D. Rosenberg, James P
Schick. Charles Arthur Smith, Frank
van SAINT and vernon E. West.
Opposed by Lawyers.
Lawyers base their opposition to the
provisions of the bill on the ground
that the method by which the Office of
the auditor of the Supreme Court of
the District of Columbia is operated
has been in vogue for more than fifty
years and has stood the test of time.
The practice is in accord with the sys-
tenn throughout the federal and state
1udfciaries and has always met with
the approval of litigants, who are more
vitality interested in the office than the
public at large.
The auditor Of the Supreme Court OF
the District of Columbia is a public
omcer, they acknowledge, but since
the work done by the auditor is of a
private nature, being only in connec-
tion with the affairs of litigants, they
maintain he should be compensated by
the fee system rather than by salary,
which would be paid out of the public
funds.
The bill changing the manner of
operating the office provides that liti-
giants shall pay fees for the services of
the auditor. and that these fees shall
of Columbia The auditor would re-
ceive an annual salary. Attorneys de-
clare that this provision would be I'M
just to the general taxpayer. who
would be called upon to pay the ex-
penses of private disputes. which
should be borne, as far as practica bic.
by the litigantS themselves
Opposition also is voiced to the arbl-
trary charges for the services of the
auditor that are stipulated by the bill
These would increase the burden i'm
posed on litigants. it is ma1ntalned. In
a large number of cases. The AUDITOR
would be required to collect his fees IN
all cases. no matter how small tney
nd he
IL is pointed out, the auditor In many
cases which he believes to be worthy
ones valves his fees entirely. ihese
include cases where small estates dix
being settled
The provision of the bill which states
that the office hours of the auditor ano
his assistants shall be from am: u
a nm. also has met with much OPPOSE
ton Such an arrangement Woulo pe
most annoying to attorneys who al
present are enabled, through the cour-
fasy of the auditor, to have hearings
often after o'clock
Bar Association Resolution.
The Bar Association placed itself on
record in opposition to the proposed
change when it adopted a resolution
presented by James B. Archer at its
meeting, which follows:
.Whereas the law and practice gov
preme Court of the District of Column
bia have had the test of experience OF
over fifty years, and are in accord with
the system throughout the federal and
state judiciaries;
"And whereas during this long period
of time the system in force has proven
of invaluabl aid to the court and as
sistance to the bar; in securing to the
former the services of a competent and
experienced lawyer and accountant
qualities rarely combined, and in pro-
yfding the latter with uniformity OF
practice:
approval of the system by the court
but the contrary; no complaint on the
part of the litigants who are properly
charged with the expenses. ana nc
demand in the community generally;
Resolved, That the Bar Association
of the District of Columbia. in regular
meeting assembled, disapproves the
changes proposed by House bill No
1907 and Senate bill No. 5102.
Resolved further. That the United
States Senate committee on the judi.
ciary be. and hereby is. requested tc
take no action on said bills without
Giving to this association the ODDOr