Supreme Court, particularly in the criminal field, that add to those responsibilities, it is a matter of fairness. It is only appropriate that the Federal Government should assume some at least symbolic measure of the financial responsibility given the fact that so much of the work in the State court system is attributable to action at the Federal level.

The second thing to keep in mind in the increased demand upon State court systems is comparable to the increased demand being made upon the Federal court system so that we have in State court systems an increase in litigation coming through the State court systems that figures out roughly to 7 percent per year.

So the State courts have to look forward to the responsibility of increasing State allocations for the improvement of State court systems because of the inflation factor, because of the increased demand for services and things of that kind, no matter what else is done.

Now the third aspect of the matter that I think argues very forcefully for the Federal Government assuming in some amount-whatever that amount is, to me that is not the important thing—a portion of this responsibility is because by the nature of things what we are dealing with here is an effort to improve, upgrade, increase the capacity of State court systems in the belief that it is in the national interest that this should be done.

The degree of that interest varies from State to State and to try to work out a formula by which the States share that obligation, which is national in character, as amongst themselves creates the kind of practical difficulties that all of us who have been involved in the political process know about very well. It is the same difficulty that the Council of State Governments has in allocating the burden of maintaining a relatively modest budget in order to provide those kinds of services to all the States. It is difficult to accomplish.

As for obtaining it from private sources, I think that is unwise for two reasons. For one reason, private foundations, for example, do not find efforts along these lines to be of sufficent interest to provide funds in the amounts that are needed to get the job done effectively.

The second thing is that I have some pretty serious reservations as to whether it is desirable from an overall constitutional, political point of view for people who speak for the branch of Governmentthe chief justice, for example-to ever be in a position where you are dependent upon private sources for the funding of governmental responsibilities.

I think it is very, very fragile ground to get on and surely in my judgment it is unwise to ever become dependent upon that.

So all those things in combination suggest to me that the wisdom in the national interest of the Federal Government taking some part of this process-I would like to emphasize again, and I think that I pretty well speak the mind of at least the chief justices with whom I have talked-the major concern is not to obtain funds to carry out the essentials of State jurisprudence. State legislatures-that is their responsibility-they will do that. What we are concerned about is a relatively small percentage of the total that will make it possible to carry out developments and improvements that will increase the capacity of the system to work effectively.

I think that as an expression of Federal recognition of the kind of a load that State courts are carrying attributable to Federal action, it just ought to be done as a matter of fairness. The level at which it is done in a time of fiscal crisis that is not the important thing; the point is the principle of the thing that we are dealing with here. If that is accepted, the rest of it will take care of itself, in my judgment.

Mr. HULTMAN. Thank you, Mr. Chief Justice.

Senator HEFLIN. It's practically impossible to raise that money locally or at the State. From a practical viewpoint, I know that National Center has had exceptionally difficult times trying to raise money from State legislatures and things of that sort involved there.

Mr. Remington, do you have some questions?

Mr. REMINGTON. No. I would like to thank you for an excellent hearing. All the questions I had previously formulated have been asked and answered by the witnesses.

Senator HEFLIN. I might make one statement about the legal service comparisons Mr. Velde raised. I think you have to look at the distinction in the purpose of the Legal Services Corporation and the purpose of a State Justice Institute. The Legal Services Corporation's thrust is to provide advocacy. The State Justice Institute would be to bring about improvements in the methodology of disputes resolution. I believe that the danger of abuse is so much more prevalent in a legal service whose main purpose is to provide advocacy, such as the Legal Services Corporation, than it is in a State Justice Institute where the main thrust is disputes resolutions.

Also, I think there is a difference too in that the activism that is criticized by some people of the Legal Services Corporation originates at a local level and moves to a national level. The fear of any type of Federal control would be originating at a Federal level and moving to a local level. So I think there are some distinctions with regard to that that we might bring out.

Well, I think it's been a good hearing. Are there any questions anybody else would like to ask? If not, then I will conclude this hearing and thank you very much for coming and being with us.

[Whereupon at 12:10 p.m., on March 19, 1980, the subcommittee hearing was adjourned.]

APPENDIX

Report of the Executive Council of the Conference of Chief Justices

In

Response to the Department of Justice Study Group Report on the

Law Enforcement Assistance Administration

August 1977

(115)

The Conference of Chief Justices appreciates the opportunity to comment on the Report to the Attorney General of the Department of Justice Study Group on Restructuring the Justice Department's Program of Assistance to State and Local Governments for Crime Control and Criminal Justice System Improvement.

We understand that Congressional proposals are still in the planning stage and anticipate the opportunity to study and comment on such proposals as they are submitted in draft form, as well as subsequent proposals from the Department of Justice.

We support the thrust of the major recommendations in the present Study Group report and in particular applaud (1) the new focus on improving and strengthening the elements of the criminal justice system rather than on "reducing crime"; (2) the emphasis on improved management and coordination functions; and (3) the call for assured minimum funding of court programs.

Long Term Needs

Our principal concern is that the report, with its focus on criminal justice, does not address the long-term needs of our nation's total justice

system. From the judiciary's point-of-view, criminal and civil justice

are inextricable. A broader focus is needed if state courts are to play their fundamental role in improving the administration of justice, including the criminal and juvenile components, and assume a major share of the burden now carried by the federal courts.

We do not feel that the Study Group has adequately addressed the need for a basic national policy on improvement of the total justice system and