the way they are coming in and the way it is catching on with the

courts

Mr. ROONEY. Why should it catch on?

Mr. ANDRETTA. The judges have gotten on to appointing commissioners under rule 71a (h).

Mr. Bow. Mr. Chairman, may I suggest there be inserted at this point in the record a breakdown of the courts' appointments of commissioners and the names of the commissioners appointed?

Mr. ROONEY. Include the names and addresses of the commissioners. Mr. THOMAS. And the fees paid to them.

Mr. Bow. Yes.

Mr. ANDRETTA. We have such a list.

Mr. ROONEY. It might be well to insert it at this point.

(The list referred to follows:)

General information relative to land commissioners by districts, U.S. attorneys, fiscal year 1959

General information relative to land commissioners by districts, U.S. attorneys, fiscal year 1959-Continued

Mr. THOMAS. Anyway it is a valid obligation against the U.S. Government and ultimately you will have to pay it.

Mr. ANDRETTA. This is not the only area where the courts have put expenses on the Department of Justice. For example, there is this great wave of having psychiatric examinations.

Practically every person who comes into court as an indigent defendant wants to have witnesses on his behalf and the courts frequently order psychiatric examinations to see if the persons are insane or not and able to stand trial and the thing is spreading like wildfire. We have to pay the psychiatrists, and believe me they are not modest in their charges.

U.S. MARSHALS

Mr. ROONEY. Let us turn now to the request for U.S. marshals. Mr. ANDRETTA. Under "Marshals" the big item of expense is travel, as I said. As you know, marshals have to transport prisoners and serve process both in Federal cases and in private litigation. In the private cases they are paid established fees and that revenue goes into the Treasury. There, again, that is an item we cannot control at all. The whole basic operation in the marshals' offices is that they have to travel frequently to do their regular work.

The other item under "Marshals" is for "Other contractual servThat covers the miscellaneous costs of operation, guard hire, and so forth. We will be short $22,500 in that area.

Mr. ROONEY. This is an educated guess, is it?

Mr. ANDRETTA. Yes, it is.

Mr. ROONEY. Any questions?

Mr. Bow. Yes. I have one question in regard to a statement on page 36 of the justifications.

Mr. Andretta, you say these costs are uncontrollable.

Mr. ANDRETTA. Yes.

Mr. Bow. But you do take credit for savings. How do you get this language:

So we did manage to save some $100,000.

How do you save if it is uncontrollable?

Mr. ANDRETTA. Last year we asked for $400,000 in this appropriation to cover uncontrollable expenditures. That was our best guess at that time, that we would need $400,000 this year. As it turns out we will be able to get by with $300,000, so we are $100,000 under our estimate of last year.

Mr. Bow. But that was not because of any magic in saving?

Mr. ANDRETTA. No, sir. I was trying to compliment the committee because the committee in turning us down

Mr. Bow. But you do not say, "We compliment the committee because of their good judgment." You say "we"-underscoring the “we”—“did manage to save some $100,000." That was not a saving at all?

Mr. ANDRETTA. No, of course not. It is a poor choice of words. Let me put it that way.

Mr. Bow. That is all.

CONTROL OVER LAND COMMISSIONER APPOINTMENTS AND COSTS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Andretta, this item of fees for commissioners and so forth, the courts appointing all the way from psychiatrists to appraisers of land, is an item that is snowballing, going up and up. The Justice Department itself is helpless in the matter, but it is an item that ought to be curtailed. I am sure the distinguished justice in California must have known what he is doing, starting with $61,000 that may end up with $250,000 or $300,000. Cannot the Supreme Court have some persuasive influence over the trial judges in holding down these costs?

Mr. ANDRETTA. Actually it would be up to the Administrative Office of the Courts and the Judicial Conference. We are trying to work out some solution because they appreciate the fact we are helpless in the matter.

Mr. THOMAS. How can the Supreme Court really control the matter?

Mr. ANDRETTA. I do not know except through the Judicial Conference laying down some basic rules and criteria in the employment of these people.

Mr. THOMAS. About the only relief anybody can get, then, is to implore the Supreme Court to take a look at the matter and see if they cannot, through persuasion or otherwise, keep this item from snowballing. It seems to me it is an extravagant use of money. Mr. ANDRETTA. I believe the Administrative Office will take it up with the Judicial Conference.

Mr. THOMAS. The Administrative Office is really an arm of the Supreme Court, is it not?

Mr. ANDRETTA. No. It has nothing to do with the Supreme Court. The Chief Justice appoints the Director of the Administrative Office. Otherwise the Supreme Court has nothing to do with it.

Mr. THOMAS. It is a separate entity?

Mr. ANDRETTA. Yes.

Mr. THOMAS. The Supreme Court can be persuasive, can it not? Mr. ANDRETTA. In that the Chief Justice is the Chairman of the Judicial Conference.

Mr. THOMAS. What authority does the business office have?

Mr. ANDRETTA. Nothing except they would have to handle the items with the courts and then present the matter to the Judicial Conference and probably establish some ground rules limiting the area of these expenditures.

Mr. THOMAS. Eventually the bill comes to the Justice Department and it is a valid obligation of the U.S. Government that must be paid.

Mr. ANDRETTA. That is right.

Mr. ROONEY. Do you think there might be a salutary effect if we cut it back to $51,000, the figure of 5 years ago?

Mr. ANDRETTA. Well

Mr. ROONEY. We would not have to pay interest on it, would we? Mr. ANDRETTA. I suppose they would file claims in the Court of Claims.

Mr. ROONEY. And they would carry interest?

Mr. ANDRETTA. I think so.

Mr. THOMAS. It might slow down the judges, though.
Mr. ROONEY. Yes; it might.

We shall now turn to fees and expenses of witnesses, where you are asking for $125,000 additional for fiscal year 1960.

What about this?

Mr. ANDRETTA. Our witnesses' expenses, as you know, are a calculated guess. We always come back every year to fill in. We have no way of controlling the number of witnesses and their compensation is fixed by statute.

Mr. ROONEY. And if the money is not used by June 30 for the payment of fees of witnesses it lapses into the Treasury?

Mr. ANDRETTA. Yes.

Mr. ROONEY. Were we any better at guessing it last year than you? Mr. ANDRETTA. I would say about the same.

Mr. ROONEY. About even Steven?

Mr. ANDRETTA. Yes. They are running about 3 percent above last year's cost, and on that basis we will need $125,000.

Mr. ROONEY. We shall at this point in the record insert pages 45 and 46 of the justifications.

(The pages follow:)