Page images
PDF
EPUB

Mr. HORAN. All of these outside of snow removal are recurring items, are they not?

Mr. HENLOCK. Even the snow removal, from the point of view of amount, is recurring, but we do not use it if the snow does not occur. Mr. HORAN. Do you have to have an appropriation for snow removal?

Mr. HENLOCK. It is only $150, and it does mean if a heavy snow comes we can employ additional help.

Mr. HORAN. We can return that to the Treasury this year, can we not?

Mr. HENLOCK. Yes, sir, and it will be returned.

We have an item of $6,000 for supplies and materials. There is no change in that item. We are also asking for $750 for such equipment as tools, mowers, brushes, and miscellaneous small items of mechanical equipment.

Mr. HORAN. Mr. Henlock, we are rebuilding the powerplant up here and that is going to reflect a saving of nearly a half million dollars a year when it is installed. We contemplate that within 32 years, we will pay in savings for this renovation. Is that also going to reflect in any way a saving of personnel?

Mr. LYNN. Mr. Chairman, we are already effecting savings in the items of personnel and coal. We were burning 80,000 tons of coal a year, but are only asking 38,000 tons for this coming year under our Capitol Power Plant estimate.

Mr. HORAN. So that is increased efficiency of the powerplant?

Mr. LYNN. Yes. Taking the old electrical generating equipment out of service has made possible the reduction from 80,000 to 38,000 tons. Mr. Chairman, we have in each building a substation which operates 24 hours a day and those stations will all be done away with when we complete our electrical conversion program.

Mr. HENLOCK. We have a substation in the Supreme Court, so it will also mean some reduction in that force.

Mr. HORAN. Will that enable us to make any cuts in this appropriation?

Mr. HENLOCK. Not for the fiscal year 1954. We are awarding the contracts for conversion, building by building. We have bids out for the conversion of the Supreme Court Building at the present time and expect to award the contract before the end of June, but, unfortunately, with the critical materials situation, it is almost impossible to get the required materials in less than 16 to 18 months, so that the changeover will extend beyond the coming fiscal year.

Mr. HORAN. Then it is your considered opinion that we have to allow this entire appropriation?

Mr. HENLOCK. Yes, sir; and I know Mr. Lynn concurs in that view.

UNIFIED POLICE COMMAND ON CAPITOL HILL

Mr. HORAN. At this time, I would like to ask Mr. Henlock regarding the possibility of coordinating the police system on the Hill, where we have today three complete police departments.

We regard the Library of Congress, of course, as a part of the legislative branch. The Supreme Court is and must remain an autonomous body. There has been some discussion of the jurisdictions of police. We can see no difficulty with regard to coordinating

those police departments which come directly under the legislative branch, meaning, of course, the Capitol Police department and the police department for the Library of Congress, all of which mean nothing probably in terms of appropriations or personnel. It could, but as far as we are concerned now, it is a matter of coordination.

Just what is the authorization and what is the legal background of the police department of the Supreme Court Building, the police department of the Library of Congress and its buildings, and the police department that has jurisdiction from the power plant down to Union Station, we do not know. It just grew. What are the legal possibilities there? What are the jurisdictions of the various areas involved?

Mr. HENLOCK. To understand that clearly, Mr. Chairman, you would have to understand first the Capitol Grounds law. Prior to 1946, we had a Capitol Police Board for many years and the Capitol Police, but their duties were not clearly defined nor the areas over which they exercised jurisdiction. The Capitol Police Board had extensive studies made around 1945-46, along with the District Commissioners and Judge Keech, who was then Corporation Counsel and represented the District Commissioners.

Mr. Lynn had me work with the Police Board and a complete law governing the Capitol Grounds was drafted and passed by Congress that year.

First, it defined the exact limits of the Capitol Grounds. It defined the limits as extending to the face of curbs on all boundary streets around the grounds. Secondly, it reestablished or reaffirmed the Capitol Police Board. It gave them jurisdiction clearly over the Capitol Police but did not disturb the methods of employment, namely, by the Sergeants at Arms of the Senate and House and selections by the personnel or patronage committees of the Senate and the House.

It also gave the Capitol Police prime jurisdiction over the Capitol Grounds, including patrol duty powers. It does permit the Metropolitan Police, however, to make arrests in the Grounds. It does not permit arrests in response to complaints to be made by the Metropolitan Police in any of our buildings except with the consent or upon request of the Capitol Police Board.

You spoke of patrol duties, I believe, extending from the Capitol Powerplant to the Union Station. Actually, the grounds about the Capitol Powerplant are patrolled by the Capitol Police and under an old statute which was not disturbed by the 1946 law. The Botanic Gardens are also patrolled by the Capitol Police.

Outside of those 2 properties and the 2 House Office Buildings and their grounds, including the House parking lot, all other properties patrolled by the Capitol Police are in the area between Independence Avenue and the Union Station. If my explenation is more detailed than you want, I will cut it short.

For many years, the District Commissioners used to commission Federal building guards as special police. Around 1948, I believe, there was a legal question raised as to whether the power of commissioning was proper from a legal point. As a result, legislation was passed providing for special policemen for the Supreme Court and also for the Library of Congress. Specifically, you have three separate statutes governing the Capitol, Supreme Court, and Library prop

erties, and I do not see how you can act on them in an appropriation bill unless there is a waiver of a point of order.

Mr. HORAN. Thank you, gentlemen.

COURT OF CUSTOMS AND PATENT APPEALS

WITNESSES

HON. FINIS J. GARRETT, CHIEF JUDGE

HON. NOBLE J. JOHNSON, JUDGE

JOSEPH G. GAUGES, MARSHAL

SALARIES AND EXPENSES

Mr. HORAN. The committee will come to order.

We now have the Court of Customs and Patent Appeals and we have our former colleague and former chairman of this subcommittee; is that not right?

Judge JOHNSON. Yes, sir.

Mr. HORAN. We are very happy to have you gentlemen with us this morning, and I am going to turn the hearings over to Mr. Bow at this time. Please continue.

Judge JOHNSON. The justification calls for an estimate of $204,500, which is the amount that we had last year with the exception of $1,800, which is an increase in salaries under the within grade law. There are no other changes in the estimates. We give breakdown here of the justification for the estimates.

Mr. HORAN. We will insert page 27 of the justification. (The matter referred to follows:)

SALARIES AND EXPENSES, COURT OF CUSTOMS AND PATENT APPEALS

[blocks in formation]

Mr. KIRWAN. I want to ask just one simple question. Noble, I used to serve with you on the committee You were the chairman and you were a good chairman. I want to ask you this: Is it much simpler to give when you are on this side of the table, or is it simpler to take it on that side?

Judge JOHNSON. I have to say, Congressman, that in my experience I have not had to ask. If we had something new in here and were trying to sell you a bill of goods, I think it would be more difficult on this side.

As it is, it has been very nice on this side.

Mr. KIRWAN. That has been in my mind for years, how you would feel over there. However, that answers that all right. I am glad to see you here this morning.

CASELOAD

Mr. Bow. Judge, there is nothing in the justification that I can find that gives any comparison of caseload over the past few years. I wonder if you might give that to us.

Mr. GAUGES. We will be very glad to supply that. This is just last year's.

Mr. Bow. You could use this same background that you have here, the same over the last 5 years, so that we might have that in the record. We may have some inquiry about that.

Mr. GAUGES. Yes, sir; we will be very glad to supply that. (The information referred to follows:)

Comparative summary of business of the United States Court of Customs and Patent Appeals for the fiscal years 1948, 1949, 1950, 1951, and 1952

[merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][ocr errors][merged small][subsumed][ocr errors][subsumed][merged small][subsumed][merged small][ocr errors][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small]

Mr. KIRWAN. The man who preceded you this morning happened to be Justice Burton. I congratulated him on the friendly relations they seem to maintain between this committee and the Court. Justice Burton, Frank Bow, and myself are from Ohio, and he was a former member of the legislative body. Then you come along. Also Marvin Jones is going to show up, so that we do not want to lose that relationship. I did not notice it until now, but I see my hometown is mentioned here, wherein on page 13 there is described such huge cases as the United States v. United Mine Workers and the Youngstown Sheet & Tube Company v. Sawyer.

That is going a long way when you turn around and pick up your hometown. I am beginning to think there was a lot of work put in on that.

Mr. Bow. If there are no more questions, that concludes our hearings on this item. It was very nice to have you.

Judge GARRETT.

If I may, Mr. Chairman, I might say to the gentlemen, I am in position to claim membership in the House but that was long ago. I served for 24 years in the House.

UNITED STATES CUSTOMS COURT

WITNESSES

HON. WEBSTER J. OLIVER, CHIEF JUDGE

HON. ERVIN C. MOLLISON, JUDGE

SALARIES AND EXPENSES

Mr. HORAN. The committee will come to order. We have with us Judge Webster J. Oliver, chief judge of the United States Customs Court, and his associate, Judge Ervin C. Mollison. Judge Oliver, do you have a short statement?

Judge OLIVER. Very short, Mr. Chairman, because I realize that there is a lot of ground to cover. To get right down to the point that is of interest to you gentlemen, our total estimate for 1954 is $579, 625, as you will note on page 33 of our justification. That represents a $112,625 increase over last year.

INCREASES REQUESTED

The items of increase are reflected on page 34 of our justification and are shown under three general headings. An increase of $27,625 represents the automatic salary increases which are referred to on page 38 and increases in grades that we are asking for, which I will discuss in a moment. In addition, we are asking for four new clerkstenographers for the court.

We had a stenographic pool of 4, but 2 of the judges have been so busy that they have taken 2 out of the pool for their constant use, so that our so-called pool is now 2 and we should have 4. I am giving it to you broadly at first and later I will give it to you in minute detail.

Another item is the one for $60,000 for a digest of decisions of our court which we do not have and which we need badly. That has been the subject of special study by Judge Mollison and that is the reason he has accompanied me here today.

Mr. HORAN. I notice that is a contractual service.

Judge OLIVER. Yes. Then under "Equipment," we ask for $25,000 more next year for air-conditioning equipment. I will discuss that in a moment, but I might say that it contemplates certain window air conditioners for the various rooms in the Court. In the summertime we work at a great disadvantage, as you gentlemen well know down here.

Mr. HORAN. Your court has to work 12 months a year, does it not? Judge OLIVER. No. That question is very pertinent. We do not. We have out-of-town dockets in the summertime, but our last regular court sessions in New York are in June and then we reconvene in New York for our regular dockets in October. However, some of us have to be there during the summertime. I myself am there because in good conscience I feel as head of the court I should be there. I have to be around throughout the summer months. I have survived it for 12 years without air conditioning, so if we do not get it, I will still survive.

In connection with that first item, Mr. Chairman, for personal services, we ask for these increases which I referred to. We need increases

« PreviousContinue »