A hundred million dollars will almost cover both of them. Against that, we have $40, $50, $60 billion-no one knows just how muchthrough various allocations, appropriations, contract authorizations, and various other obligations for which the executive department spends money.

Mr. Justice BURTON. I think you are quite right, sir.

Mr. HORAN. If this experiment in democracy is going to survive, this committee is really concerned with the maintenance of strength in the legislative and the judicial branches. I do not know whether or not other people are concerned about the background and growth of the judiciary. As far as I am concerned, it really started in that meadow outside of London about a half millennium ago at Runnymeade when a very reluctant dictator was forced, not by commoners, but by nobles, to sign the Magna Carta. Just how much enlightenment they had from the attempts by the Jews in Israel that we have recorded in the Bible or how much experience or knowledge they had of the Greek attempts at justice, or how much knowledge they had of the father of our present judiciary, the Romans, I do not know.

However, I do know that since that time we have tried to maintain a world in which the individual was protected and we have built on that.

As a result of that, we do today have the judiciary. Into that picture here we are, members of the legislative branch, called upon to appropriate the funds for the judiciary.

In no moment nor in any act of mind, Mr. Justice, do I want the legislative to impair the quality of your justice. I want you to correct my statements if you think I am wrong.

You are before us now for the funds that you need annually to run the Supreme Court of the United States. A greater body of justice has never existed. I know that my colleagues agree with me that what we want to do is to help and not impair the complete freedom of judgment on your part.

I think that is all I have to say. I hope, Mr. Justice, I have made myself clear. Yours is almost a diplomatic trip over here because actually as far as I am concerned your estimates are my estimates. It is just nice to have you with us this morning.

Mr. Justice BURTON. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate very much the statement you have made and the perspective from which you view our problem. We are here to explain whatever items there are in Our request. They are almost identical with what they have been before.

I have with me here the marshal of the Court, T. Perry Lippitt; the reporter of decisions, Walter Wyatt; our assistant librarian, Edward Hudon, and assistant to the marshal, Miss Dina Zucconi. On our committee of the Court to come before this committee, there are two members. I want to express the regret of Mr. Justice Hugo Black who is confined to his home. He is not well and was not able to come.

I think that we were both put on that committee for the reason that we have both served in the Senate and therefore come before you with sympathy for your problem as well as sympathy for our own.

Mr. HORAN. We do not want that to entangle any of your judg

ments.

Mr. Justice BURTON. I think the Court has acquired an independ

ence of attitude through the generations that has borne out the purpose of it.

I would like to tell you my favorite story which I tell sometimes to visiting groups of high schools when they ask what the function of the Court is in this Government, in view of what you have said. The story is that one time when I was mayor of Cleveland years ago, a boy on the playground said to me, "Mayor, why do we have so many courts and judges in our city?"

There might have been several answers to that question, but instead of answering his question, I asked him if he played baseball, whereupon he said, "Of course I play baseball." I said, "Do you have an umpire?" Then he gave me this answer, which was better than he knew, and I have always been appreciative of it: "Mayor, when we want to last a full nine-inning game, then we have an umpire," which indicates that he knew perfectly well he could have an informal kind of contest in a scrub game and get along without an umpire, but that if he were going to have a difficult contest, a long and hard contest, and not have it break up in a riot, he would have to have an umpire who was independent. The umpire need not be superhuman, but he has to be somebody who knows the rules, who is honest, who seeks to apply those rules promptly, and whose decisions both sides have agreed in advance to accept.

That is the function that the Court is endeavoring to perform with the Constitution and the laws as its rule book. We regard ourselves to a certain extent as the keystone that holds in place the several branches of the Government that have been placed in a governmental arch designed by the Constitution to sustain a representative republic seeking to preserve for the individual the greatest freedom that is consistent with a like freedom for others.

Mr. HORAN. You are not only the keystone; you are the filter through which the will of the people is adjudicated and administered. Mr. Justice BURTON. Speaking directly to our appropriation, and the background for it, we come to you as the Supreme Court of the United States to present the first item in the appropriation for the judiciary. There was a time when the Supreme Court of the United States and all the judiciary had to come to Congress through the executive branch. The Attorney General then made the request for the appropriation for the judiciary. We have gotten away from that, I am glad to say, so that now we come to you ourselves and we come as a coordinate branch of the Government.

Mr. HORAN. I hope I have made it clear that this subcommittee appreciates the responsibility we have, which is not great in matters of money, but is great in matters of the Constitution.

Mr. Justice BURTON. We come to you solely on the item for the Supreme Court of the United States. Before the meeting, you asked me if I would not say a work to indicate the relationship between the Supreme Court of the United States and the Judicial Conference of the United States which speaks for the other courts of the Federal system. but does not speak for the Supreme Court of the United States. Under the statute, the Supreme Court which consists of the Chief Justice and the eight Associate Justices.

Mr. HORAN. Mr. Justice, we recognize that the Supreme Court has to be the supreme court. Let us make that clear in our hearing.

Mr. Justice BURTON. The Supreme Court consists solely of the Chief Justice and eight Associate Justices. The Judicial Conference of the United States consists of the Chief Justice of the United States in his broader administrative capacity and not as the presiding officer of the Supreme Court of the United States. As the Chief Justice of the United States, which is his statutory title, he meets with the chief judges of the 11 circuits of the Federal system. They constitute the Judicial Conference of the United States.

Through them, the various courts of appeals and district courts speak. They come to you on behalf of the entire Federal judicial system, except the Supreme Court of the United States. We come to you solely on behalf of the Supreme Court of the United States located in our building across the street.

Mr. HORAN. May I point out that that is duplicated elsewhere? The President is a member of the Cabinet, but he is still the President. The Speaker of the House of Representatives is a Member of the House of Representatives, but he is still the Speaker. There is a division there that we recognize, if we are intelligent, that has to exist. The Speaker only votes in the House of Representatives in case of a tie. Otherwise, as Speaker, he does not vote. The only place in the whole United States that you find any symbol of authority, the mace, of course is in the House of Representatives. It is not down at the White House. It is not even over in the Supreme Court. Your business is judgment. Ours is policy. The White House is concerned with administration, so to have the Chief Justice a member of the Judicial Conference is merely a matter of good judgment in my opinion.

I hope that I have not cluttered up this hearing with my expressions here, but I have been concerned with this matter for a long while. Please continue.

GENERAL STATEMENT ON SALARIES AND EXPENSES

Mr. Justice BURTON. We have come to the committee to present the needs of the Supreme Court of the United States. Last year, we were allotted $1,329,650. This year, we are asking for the same, plus a nonrecurring item of $2,500, so the total is $1,332,150. I may as well mention right now what that nonrecurring item is. It arises from the necessity for the occasional revisions of our rules. Recently, the Congress appropriated $11,500 for a committee to bring up to date the rules of the district courts but there has been no general revision of our own Supreme Court rules since 1939, long before the two new codes were passed by the Congress in 1948 or also before the revision of the Federal rules of civil procedure and criminal procedure for the district courts.

As Mr. Bow well knows, when the rules of the court get out of line with the statutes, it becomes rather difficult for the entire bar. Therefore, we have a committee of our court under the chairmanship of Mr. Justice Reed that is working now on the revision of the rules of the Supreme Court and we have put in this budget a nonrecurring item of $2,500 which we feel will be sufficient to print a preliminary print and a final print of 5,000 copies of those rules when we finally get them done for distribution.

Aside from that, our request is for the same service that we have had before.

SALARIES

I think one thing should be mentioned. Of course, the largest item is the salary item. Last year this was $1,017,900. This year we are asking for precisely the same figure, $1,017,900. Although there necessarily have been some normal increases in pay as a result of length in service, it so happens there have been enough people replaced by juniors at lower salaries that we are not asking even for the normal increase that comes from length of service. The juniors have offset this increase by coming in at a lower rate of pay. The net result is no indrease whatever in the salary item.

You will notice in that item that we originally filed a request for an increase of $3,900, but on going over the figures and finding that there were enough juniors employed to offset the seniors, we took off the $3,900. We therefore now reduce our original request by $3,900. All the way through, it will be $3,900 less than the figures requested.

PRINTING AND BINDING REPORTS

The second item is that of printing and binding Supreme Court reports. That is the item which comes under Mr. Walter Wyatt, the reporter of decisions of the Court. We are never able to estimate that precisely because he can never figure out a year in advance how many opinions we are going to write or how long they are going to be, but experience has led Mr. Wyatt to put in this figure and I feel that in all reasonable probability it will take care of this item for the coming year.

MISCELLANEOUS EXPENSES

The next item is "Miscellaneous expenses." That is where the item of $2,500 comes in as an increase from $46,450 to $48,950, the increase covering solely that nonrecurring item of printing the rules. The fourth item is solely in the hands of the Architect of the Capitol, David Lynn, "Care of building and grounds."

COORDINATION OF POLICE ON CAPITOL HILL

Mr. HORAN. There is one other item, Mr. Justice, that we are considering. If the subcommittee will permit me, I would like to tell you that we have three separate police departments in our couple of sections of land that David Lynn has jurisdiction over as Architect.

We have three separate ones. It has disturbed me for quite a while, Mr. Justice. I do not know how many people there are that can make an arrest in the environs of the Capital City, but at my last look it was in the neighborhood of 7,500.

There are 17 separate police departments, believe it or not, in this area which encompasses about a million and a quarter people. There are merchant patrolmen, there are people in the various detective agencies that we have, including the Federal Bureau of Investigation, and there are highway patrolmen from Virginia and Maryland who are assigned to our area. It is a problem that will never be solved. We will never cure it. But 17 complete and established police departments are too many.

When I was chairman of the District of Columbia Appropriations Committee, I did request and we did have all of these captains write

to our Metropolitan Police Department, who are the major uniformed operators, letters of coordination.

We find up on the Hill now that the Library of Congress has 79 guards. Here on the Hill, we have Captain Broderick with 157 patrolmen. He has more than one building. He has from down there at the powerplant all the way down to Union Station to patrol. You have about 33 over in the Supreme Court. You have a captain over there. This subcommittee would like to coordinate all of those patrols under one head.

The Library of Congress has agreed to that.

Mr. Justice BURTON. Responding to the suggestion of the value of coordination of police protection on the Hill, I am not authorized to speak for the Court on policy, but I feel that I should call the attention of the committee to a sharp distinction that exists between the Supreme Court police and the police of the other branches of the Government.

Mr. HORAN. I am sure that you are exactly right. It is merely a matter of whether or not the legislative branch should supply protection to the Supreme Court or whether you should be completely autonomous. That is a matter that will have to be decided by you. We feel that a better coordination and a better deployment of patrols can be had if the legislative were to protect the Supreme Court. That is a matter you are going to have to think about.

Mr. Justice BURTON. There was an act of Congress passed in the last year or two on that matter giving us jurisdiction in our block of our Court. Our 33 police are under the marshal of our Court. They are the right and left hands of the marshal of the Court and I have a clear impression that the Court will insist that those police be responsible to him alone. He should have his own assistant marshals or whatever you want to call them to exercise police power for the Court within the one block set aside for the Court by the statute. There is no overlapping or no conflict with regard to them. You will find an important reason for the separate status of the police of our independent branch of the Government.

Mr. HORAN. Will you please discuss that with them, because we have been concerned and I think we are going to have to take some action to correct what seems to us to be an unwise arrangement up here regarding the work that Captain Broderick's force, both on the Senate side and on our side, has to do.

Mr. Justice BURTON. I see your conflict with the Metropolitan Police and your relation to the Library of Congress.

Mr. HORAN. We do not have any conflicts.

Mr. Justice BURTON. I mean the problem that is involved. You will find that the statute the Congress has adopted with regard to our force really meets that head-on, and provides the Marshal with these policemen to assist the Marshal.

Mr. Bow. In other words, the garrison police there, Mr. Justice, are from the Marshal's office rather than a police force?

Mr. Justice BURTON. That is right, under the command of the Marshal.

Mr. Bow. It is different situation, however, so far as the Library of Congress is concerned.

Mr. Justice BURTON. Oh, yes.