Evening star., 1915-02-19
neither the court nor the litigating
community had favored the change.

| community had favored the change.
In its only editorial in which the
subject of this proposed legislation
was discussed The Star urged that
the power to fix the compensation of
the auditor was in the court, and
rightly so; and that if the auditor
was receiving too large compensation
for his work reduction should be
made by the court, upon whom the
responsibility of fixing his reason
able compensation rested, and not
by Congress.
Neither the Board of Trade nor
the Bar Association, The Star as
sumes, would dream of criticising the
Supreme Court for exercising its
power of fixing the compensation of
auditor by reducing that compensa-
ton if the court had, however sud
denly and Unexpectedly, concluded
that the auditors earnings had grown
to be excessive. If the fees charged
by the auditor and approved by the
court were exorbitant the ultimate
and heaviest blame would obviously
fall upon the court itself, and it
would be under obligation to act
both in the public interest and in its
own protection.
The only question discussed in con-
neotion with the action of the court
was addressed to the discretion of
the court itself and queried whether
the particular method of reduction
proposed was the wisest and the
fairest that was available.
The court rule concerning the audi
tor says:
The compensation of the auditor
shall be fixed by the court and
charged and borne by such of the
parties to the cause as the court may
direct. The auditor need not pre-
pare or return a report until his fees
therefor be paid or secured to his
satisfaction unless the court to which
the report is to be returned other
wise order"
Every step in the whole transac-
ton is in the absolute control of the
court. The auditors work is cut out
for him by the court and cannot get
to him except through the court. The
court decides which litigants shall
pay for this personal work of the
auditor and how much in each case
shall be paid. The court can cut
down the auditors earnings to a
minimum by diverting complicated
and profitable references from him
to special masters in chancery, as
we'll as by reducing the charges
against litigants in the cases referred
to him.
In the light of these conditions It
was suggested that the court would
more wisely and equitably reduce the
auditors compensation by the exer-
else of these powers than by fixing
an arbitrary limit upon the auditors
earnings, inasmuch as these earnings
were only what the court had already
declared to be reasonable compen-
sation for work specifically imposed
upon the auditor by the court and
actually performed.
Where is the equity in charging
more to the itigant on the pretext
of compensating the auditor than
the auditor is to receive and in turn
ing over the money thus extorted to
Uncle Sam? Where is the equity in
withholding from the auditor money
which the court has fixed as reason
able compensation for work actual
ly done? What equitable claim has
the United States to any of this
money as against the litigant and the
auditor? If the court will thus as a
by-product of the judicial machine
make an unearned profit for the gov
ernment out of litigants, will it not
be equitable that the District, which
meets half the courts expenses, shall
share with the United States the
fruits of this conhscation?
These questions are submitted in
supreme confidence and without
right of appeal to the wisdom and
justice of the Supreme Court of the
District of Columbia, sitting inform
ally as a court of equity.