Statements of CONTENTS. Hon. O. B. Burtness, Member of Congress.. 575 1923 Cai 4thset Page. Hon. John D. Harris, general agent, Department of Justice__ Mr. E. M. Kennard, administrative accountant, Department of 12 Hon. O. B. Burtness, Member of Congress (resumed). 12 22 II LIBRARY OF CONGRESS DEC 11 1936 DIVISION OF DOCUMENTS SUBCOMMITTEE No. III OF THE COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY, The subcommittee met at 10 o'clock a. m., Hon. Richard Yates (chairman) presiding. Mr. YATES, Mr. Burtness, we are ready to hear you. STATEMENT OF HON. O. B. BURTNESS, A MEMBER OF CONGRESS FROM NORTH DAKOTA. Mr. BURTNESS. Gentlemen, I have two bills. The numbers are H. R. 2860 and H. R. 2909. In a way they are companion bills. They relate to jurors' and witnesses' fees, one bill relating to jurors and the other to witnesses. I would suggest that we take No. 2909 first, although I am not at all certain that No. 2860 is not the more important of the two. I believe every member of this subcommittee has been a successful practitioner of the law in his State.. This bill amends section 852 of the Revised Statutes relating to jurors' fees, and section 852 reads as follows: For actual attendance at any court or courts, and for the time necessarily occupied in going to and returning from the same, $3 a day during such attendance; for the distance necessarily traveled from their residence in going to and returning from said court by the shortest practical route, 5 cents a mile. In other words, the jurors in Federal courts are to-day, and for the last 55 years have been, allowed $3 per day. I think every one of us realize that it is impossible for a juror to leave his place of business in another town, or leave his farm, and go to the place where court is held and take care of his expenses when he is away from home on an allowance of $3 per day. In a great many of the cities where Federal courts are held he can not even get a room for that amount at a decent and respectable hotel; but in any district a man can not live decently on $3 per day. I am one of those who do not believe that jurors should be paid any appreciable amount so that they would have a profit out of it. I think it is the duty of any American citizen to live as a citizen and serve as a juror at the proper times and to do his share, but I feel it is a disgrace for a wealthy county to compel a man to serve that country at a substantial loss. There is, of course, a great deal of discrepancy between the juror who is simply called to attend court in his own city and the one pulled away from his business, farm or bank, as the case may be, and who has to leave it and be gone for several days. I have no sympathy for the fellow who lives in the same town and steps over to the courthouse for a few minutes, possibly, some morning and then gets away. They are taken care of fairly under the present per diem; in fact, I am not so sure that they are not getting more than they are entitled to. Mr. YATES. What do they get now? Mr. BURTNESS. $3 per day. I have drawn a bill which is based on another theory. I have decreased the per diem allowance in my bill to $2.50 per day, but I have provided a sustenance allowance for the men who attend court outside of the city of their residence. Mr. YATES. Is that new? Mr. BURTNESS. That is an entirely new proposition. Mr. TILLMAN. Is that in addition to the per diem? Mr. BURTNESS. You will note I suggest this amendment: For actual attendance at any court or courts, and for the time necessarily occupied in going to and returning from the same, $2.50 per day. My proposal is to cut down the present per diem to $2.50. Two dollars would be satisfactory to me, or $3 would be satisfactory. This is simply a suggestion. I am leaving the mileage allowance the same as at present. Mr. HERSEY. Your main change is that of providing a sustenance allowance? Mr. BURTNESS. Yes; and it is found in the third short paragraph, which reads as follows: To jurors in attendance at court outside the city of their residence, a sustenance allowance of $3 per day during such attendance and for the time necessarily occupied in going to and returning from the same. In other words, I am not particular as to the amount; but I am desirous of giving the juror who is thrust into court his actual ex penses, living moderately, under ordinary conditions in the average district of our country. Mr. HERSEY. Five cents a mile will take care of his traveling expenses, won't it? Mr. BURTNESS. Yes. Mr. TILLMAN. Is that both ways? Mr. BURTNESS. Each way. Mr. TILLMAN. In other words, 10 cents a mile for the round trip. Mr. BURTNESS. That will usually take care of the juror's traveling expense. I will revert later to the situation with respect to witnesses who are forced to come from a distance. Five cents a mile does not now take care of the expenses of witnesses coming from a distance. Mr. HERSEY. Your bill does not provide for witnesses. Mr. BURTNESS. The other bill does, but I am taking up the jurors first. The two bills can really be considered together. Mr. TILLMAN. Before you leave that does this $3 sustenance fee add to the $2.50? Mr. BURTNESS. Yes. In other words, if my bill is passed without amendment the juror who attends court outside of the city of his residence would get $5.50 a day; within the city of his residence, $2.50 a day; and it would tend to put the juror attending court from outside, from down in the country some place, on a more equal basis with the juror who attends court in the city of his residence. The man who is brought 200 miles or 50 miles is taken away from his business, while the man who attends court in his own city keeps in daily touch with his business, but that is one of the things that can not be equalized. Mr. HERSEY. Now, who is back of this movement to make the fees larger? Mr. BURTNESS. As far as I am concerned there is no one back of it. It is backed only by my own views and the views of the trial judge, the district attorney, the clerk of the court, and other court officials in my own State with whom I have discussed the matter. Mr. MAJOR. What State are you from? Mr. BURTNESS. I am from North Dakota. In the practice of my profession before I came down here I heard very serious complaints made both by jurors and witnesses with reference to this situation. Mr. HERSEY. How many districts have you in your State? Mr. BURTNESS. One district in our State. Mr. HERSEY. The witnesses and jurors come largely from the country towns? Mr. BURTNESS. Yes; with a substantial sprinkling of farmers. Mr. HERSEY. They don't go to the high-priced hotels, do they? They go to the boarding houses and eat at restaurants. Mr. BURTNESS. Court in held in our State at four or five of the the leading towns. The jurors are universally found, and I say they ought to be found, in what in those towns are the three or four best hotels. In those hotels a room, if they get a room with a bath, will cost them $3 per night; without a bath, $1.50 or $2 per night. The most of them do not get rooms with a bath, I take it; but we still say that the room costs $1.50 or $2. With their present allowance, there would be $1 left upon which to eat and it is out of the question to do that. There is not a juror who can get by to-day unless he goes to a very cheap boarding house. Mr. HERSEY. There probably would not be more than one juror, sometimes less than that, from the city at which court is held? Mr. BURTNESS. Most of them would be from outside, in a State like ours. Mr. HERSEY. In addition to the present fees, you are adding $2.50 a day for each juryman? Mr. BURTNESS. In a more congested State, of course, the additional expense will be a great deal less, and the saving would also be substantial. I take it that in a city like Duluth there would be a larger number of local jurors upon whom some saving would be made, and I am not suggesting that the saving that might be made in reducing the per diem from $3 to $2.50 would take care of the additional expense. I do not know whether it would or not. In a city like Chicago, for instance, the saving would be very substantial, and would help to defray the additional expense that would be required to put a man who comes from a distance on a somewhat equal basis with a man who simply goes a few blocks to the courthouse. But bad as the situation is with reference to jurors, the situation is even worse with respect to witnesses. Mr. HERSEY. I think, Mr. Chairman, one bill at a time is sufficient. Is this all you want to present on this bill? Mr. BURTNESS. These are really companion bills. They cover very much the same subject. They both apply to the administration of justice. Mr. YATES. There is a communication here advocating something very similar to this, sent in by Congressman Merritt. It occurred to me it might be a good idea to have this before us. It may not absolutely support your views. The letter is signed by Mr. Charles N. Arnold, is dated Bridgeport, Conn., January 1, 1924, and reads as follows: Doubtless you will call to mind some correspondence we had some months ago concerning the travel fees of jurors attending the United States district courts. I refer to the correspondence of last January under dates of the 11th instant, at which time I wrote you, and your kind reply of the 13th instant. I presume you have this on file for reference, but if not I can supply copies of it for your perusal. The closing paragraph of your letter of the date January 13, 1923, stated that you considered it useless to present the matter at the Congress in session at that time, because it would expire shortly, and that you would take up the matter at the next session. I am more firmly convinced since talking with attorneys and others that the law as it now stands has been falsely interpreted, for the law as enacted states the compensation allowed jurors and mentions in the same connection the mileage allowance, and had it been the intent of the framers of the law to limit the compensation for attendance or for mileage such intent would have been definitely stated in the enactment. Reference is made to the daily compensation and mileage, without any distinction being made to the mileage as being allowed for weekly or other attendance. How anybody can construe the law to divorce the daily attendance and mileage is not plain to me. I think the law should be so amended as to leave no question on these points. I think from your correspondence that you fully agreed with me in my contention. It is manifestly unfair to ask jurors to attend the United States courts and sit upon and render judgments on cases involving many times millions of dollars for a paltry $3 per day and to pay their traveling expenses besides. There is nothing fair about such conditions, and the very minimum |