Изображения страниц
PDF
EPUB

another. But what struck me as being funny was that the number of cases down there coming to the commissioners was so large. Why should there be so many cases?

Mr. BROWN. That is dependent entirely upon the enforcing agency. It is due to their program of activities; it seems to me that thăt governs it.

Mr. WHITEHURST. I looked into that, and I talked with them about it. There are about 100,000 people coming across a year, and only a small percentage of them get before the courts. The immigration inspector, I was told, chases back a lot of them without bringing them before the courts. They are mostly repeaters who go before the courts.

The item of expense before the commissioners, comparatively speaking, is small, as compared to the cost of keeping them in jails. I was informed that the jail bill in one county would run $10,000 a month.

I would say further that the judges are requiring these commissioners to continue to do the work even after they have reached their maximum pay, whereas the judges, under the law, have the right to appoint additional commissioners, if they so choose, and they could have four or five commissioners, each drawing a substantial amount of money, but they are requiring the commissioners to continue to work for nothing for the remainder of the year, having one commissioner do the work, which to my mind is evidence of restraint and evidence that a racket, so far as commissioners are concerned, does not exist.

Senator McCARRAN. The whole thing has been a perplexing proposition; there is no question about that.

Mr. WHITEHURST. Extremely so, sir.

FEES OF JURORS, UNITED STATES COURTS

JUSTIFICATION

Senator McCARRAN. Fees of jurors, United States courts, is the next item for consideration.

I will insert page 101 of the justifications in the record at this point. (The material referred to is as follows:)

FEES OF JURORS, UNITED STATES COURTS

Statement showing analysis by objects

[blocks in formation]

Senator McCARRAN. Under the item of "Fees of jurors, United States courts,” you are requesting $2,900,000, an increase of $200,000; $180,000 of this increase is for mileage of jurors. Will you please give us your reasons for requesting this increase for mileage?

Mr. CHANDLER. It is based on our experience, sir. A law was passed which raises the mileage for jurors and also permits this rate to be collected by jurors who travel back and forth during their term of service, between the court and their homes, whereas, under the former law, the maximum rate could be collected only when they went to the court for service and when they returned. Based on the experience of the first 7 months of the current year, it appears that our costs under the law-and we are only authorizing payments in accordance with the provisions of the recent act—will run somewhat over $2,900,000. That is the amount we are asking for.

Senator McCARRAN. That is for the current year?

Mr. CHANDLER. Yes, sir; we are only asking that amount for next year.

Senator McCARRAN. It is impossible to get a correct figure on that, is it not?

Mr. Brown. It is practically impossible, Senator.

Senator McCARRAN. It depends upon the number of jury actions in each court?

Mr. BROWN. That is one factor.

Senator McCARRAN. And on the mileage that they have to travel, and so forth?

Mr. BROWN. That is correct, sir.
Senator McCARRAN. It is a good deal like your witness fees.

Mr. Brown. We have to base that almost entirely on past experience. If conditions change materially, of course, our estimates are off.

PROPOSED LANGUAGE DELETION

Senator McCARRAN. You explain in your justifications, on page 103, that you desire to have the following phraseology deleted from the bill: but such compensation shall not exceed $250 each per annum. Will you please explain to the committee your reasons for desiring to change that?

Mr. WHITEHURST. The Commissioners in the District of Columbia are paid on a different basis, that is, the jury commissioners, under the District of Columbia Code, are paid on a different basis from those in the several districts. Under the code, there are three commissioners. They may receive $10 per day, provided that they may not receive more than $250 each per year.

In order to enlarge the jury list and to get the number of qualified jurors who are required for the district courts in the District of Columbia, with 15 courts operating, and, in addition, jurors for the municipal courts of the District of Columbia, a great deal of time is required of these jury commissioners. That has worked a hardship on some of these commissioners. The court in the District of Columbia desires to eliminate this restriction so that they may be paid their present rate of compensation for each day of service, which they render, without being limited to $250 per year.

Senator McCARRAN. Is not that provision included in some phase of law?

Mr. WHITEHURST. Yes, sir; and it is the purpose of the court to recommend to the Legislative Committee the deletion of that limitation in the code. As a matter of fact, in the appropriation act it is merely superfluous. It really has no business in the act because the fees must be paid, according to law, anyway. There is the limitation in the District of Columbia Code now.

this year.

Even if the District of Columbia Code were amended, the limitation would still be in effect because of its existence in the appropriation act. If this door is unlocked, they intend to try to unlock the other door, too. They want to change the substantive law, but there is no point in changing the substantive law, as long as it is in the appropriation act.

Senator McCARRAN. We would have to have legislation, would we not?

Mr. WHITEHURST. Yes, sir.
Senator McCARRAN. In order to take it out?
Mr. WHITEHURST. Yes, sir.
Senator McCARRAN. And it is in the law now?

Mr. WHITEHURST. Yes, sir. This just repeats what is in the law. It has been carried forward from year to year, and the appropriation act merely repeats the limitation which exists in the statutory law.

Senator MCCARRAN. Well, now, if you took it out of this bill, you would still have it in the law?

Mr. WHITEHUST. That is correct.

Senator McCARRAN. It would be in the legislation, and you would need a legislative act to change it?

Mr. WHITEHURST. That is right.

Senator McCARRAN. In this instance, you are requesting us to insert this legislation into an appropriation bill, which would be objected to right off the bat.

Mr. WHITEHURST. No, sir, it is to eliminate it. It is to eliminate the language which has appeared in each appropriation act up until

Senator McCarran. And then you would come before the Judiciary Committee and ask for the legislation?

Mr. WHITEHURST. That is correct, sir.

Mr. CHANDLER. Even if we did get this changed, the basic law would still prevent us from paying any more than is specified here.

Senator McCARRAN. Does it apply only to the District of Columbia ?

Mr. WHITEHURST. Yes, sir. Senator McCARRAN. And it is in the District of Columbia Code? Mr. WHITEHURST. Yes, sir. Senator McCARRAN. All right. I am glad to have your explanation. I have some doubt about it.

Mr. WHITEHURST. Thank you, sir.

Senator McCARRAN. I have some doubt of our power to eliminate it. Is there anything further you want to say on this?

Mr. WHITEHURST. No, sir; not on this elimination.

Senator McCARRAN. Now, that is the last item we have for consideration this morning.

Tomorrow morning we will take up some other phases of this general subject.

Mr. CHANDLER. Shall we return at 10 o'clock?
Senator McCARRAN. We will meet at 10:30.
Mr. CHANDLER. Thank you.

Senator McCARRAN. All right. The committee will recess until 10:30 tomorrow morning. Thank you very much, gentlemen.

(Whereupon, at 12:40 p. m., Wednesday, March 21, 1951, the committee was recessed, to reconvene at 10:30 a. m. on Thursday, March 22, 1951.)

DEPARTMENTS OF STATE, JUSTICE, COMMERCE, AND

THE JUDICIARY APPROPRIATIONS FOR 1952

THURSDAY, MARCH 22, 1951

UNITED STATES SENATE, SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS,

Washington, D. C. The subcommittee met, pursuant to recess, at 10:30 a. m.,

in room F-82, the Capitol, Hon. Pat McCarran (chairman of the subcommittee) presiding. Present: Senators McCarran, McKellar, and Ferguson.

THE JUDICIARY MISCELLANEOUS EXPENSES, UNITED STATES COURTS STATEMENT OF HENRY P. CHANDLER, DIRECTOR, ADMINISTRA

TIVE OFFICE, UNITED STATES COURTS, ACCOMPANIED BY HON. JOHN BIGGS, JR., CHIEF JUDGE, UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD CIRCUIT; HON. WILLIAM DENMAN, CHIEF JUDGE, UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS, NINTH CIRCUIT; HON. ALBERT B. MARIS, JUDGE, UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD CIRCUIT; E. BARRETT PRETTYMAN, JUDGE, UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA; HON. ALEXANDER HOLTZOFF, JUDGE, UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA; ELMORE WHITEHURST, ASSISTANT DIRECTOR; JOHN C. BROWN, BUDGET AND ACCOUNTING OFFICER; WILSON F. COLLIER, SERVICE OFFICER; THEODORE COGSWELL, REGISTER OF WILLS, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

JUSTIFICATION

Senator McCARRAN. "Miscellaneous expenses, United States Courts,” is the next appropriation request.

Page 118 of the justifications will be inserted in the record at this point.

391

« ПредыдущаяПродолжить »