Evening star., 1936-08-26
TRANSFERSOUGHT
FOR COURT COSTS
|. FROM D. c. TO j. S.
Federal Authorities Consider
Change That Would Save
$4,000.
IDENTITY RECENTLY
SET BY NEW NAMES
District Court of United States
and United States Court of Ap.
peals Removal Local Aspect.

Transfer Of the cost of operating the
District Court of the United States
for the District of Columbia and the
United States Court of Appeals for
the District to the appropriations Of
the Justice Department is being con-
sidered by Federal authorities, it was
revealed today.
The change. If approved by Con-
gress in acting on the Justice Depart
ment budget to be submitted by the
President. would relieve the District
of something more than $470.000 ex-
pense in the next fiscal year.
The transfer. Is advocated by judges
Of the two superior courts here on the
ground they are in fact Federal courts
and not municipal courts.
The suggested change was outlined
to members of the District subcom-
mittee of the Senate Appropriations
Committee early this year during con-
sideration of the 1887 municipal sup
ply bill.
Two Namrs Changed.
Disclosure that the move being
pushed at this time recalled that Con-
gress at the past session changed the
names of the two superior courts here
in recognition Of their standing as
Federal rather than municipal courts.
The development also recalled that
two judges Of the Superior Courts
here successfully contested the Is per
cent cut in pay which was a part of
the economy legislation of 1888.
Federal judges were exempted, but
an effort was made to apply the cut to
judges here on the theory they were
municipal servants. Protests were
made by Justice William Hitz (since
deceased), who was justice of the
appellate court, and by Justice Daniel
w. ODonoghue of the old District
Supreme Court. The United States
Court of Claims certified the case to
the United States Supreme Court and
the high court held the justices were
correct in classifying themselves as
Federal judges.
During the past session of Congress
Representative 'Blanton Of Texas wrote
into the 1887 District supply bill a
rider to prohibit any District employe
making s2400 a year or more from
engaging in any outside pursuits for
pay. This would have prevented judges
of the two superior courts here from
continuing to teach at night law
schools.
Justice Harold NJ Stephens of Ap-
peals Court wrote to members of the
Senate subcommittee strongly pro-
testing against inclusion of the
judges. The rider was knocked out
in conferences between the House
and Senate.
Discrimination Charged.
On that point, Justice Stephens
said, II call particular attention to
the fact that this section as applied
to the justices of the United States
Court of Appeals and of the Supreme
Court of the District unjustly dis
eliminates against them alone Of all
the Federal judiciary"
When he initiated discussion OF the
change of the budget to the Justice
Department, Justice Stephens told the
Senate group:
II respectfully urge the committee
to consider recommending that in the
future-not this year, the matter is
closed for this year-the budget for the
United States Court of Appeals be han
died through the Department OF JUS
tice. as the budgets of all other United
States courts are, rather than through
the District of Columbia.
1T has no proper place, from the
financial standpoint, in the District Of
Columbia bill. The great majority OF
our work is Federal work, and the Dis
trict ought not to be burdened with our
support in any degree at all, any more
than any of the other courts should be
classed outside the Federal courts.