in which the case could not go on for some reason. While the United States is not a fugitive, the United States is recalcitrant, and they bring condemnation cases and take the land and the moneys are paid in to the register of the court, where one person either appeals, or one person is unknown and it is impossible to ascertain to whom that money shall be paid, and that money stays in that court for 5 or 6 or 7 or 8 years before it is sent back to the Treasury of the United States, and that retains the case on the docket. So it is very difficult, with due deference to you, Congressman, from that sort of statistics, to formulate any positive opinion.

Mr. ROBSION. But the purpose of this bill is to see that it is done? Justice GRONER. Yes.

Mr. MICHENER. Do you think that if you had this bill and had those authorities who have been appointed, that we could make definite progress?

Justice GRONER. I think we could make better progress than we are making. I think we would make better progress than we are making now, yes.

Mr. MCLAUGHLIN. The conference that is authorized under section 306, in which the members of the bar are permitted to participate, is a purely advisory thing?

Justice GRONER. Purely advisory.

Mr. MCLAUGHLIN. Now, would you think that the practical thing, in view of the criticism on the part of the public against the courts and charges of delay and inefficiency-would you think it practicable to invite a layman, an outsider, not a member of the bar, a representative of the public, to sit in the conference, or do you think that the consideration would be so technical that an outsider, a layman, would not be of any assistance?

Justice GRONER. I doubt it, Congressman. There might be, here and there, a layman who had given throught to this matter, who could be helpful, and I cannot imagine any conference from which he would be rejected, simply because he was not a member of the bar. I do not think there would be any difficulty about his coming forward, and I am sure the judges would be delighted to hear from him. But I think the theory of the success of this thing is to bring together the lawyers in the districts all around, and the judges, and to get together with those people, with this approval by the Congress of the thing, itself-there would not be a feeling on the part of the bar that they were purely invitees; there would be the feeling that they were there by right.

Now, in the fourth circuit, they come by invitation of the conference. They are just invited to come there, and it may be, under those circumstances, there is some feeling of hesitation in expressing themselves about what is to be done. But under this bill, when they have come under the authority of the bill, they would have just as much right, under those conditions, as the judges, to express themselves. In other words, there would be no lack of hesitation, except as obtains out of deference to a judicial officer.

The CHAIRMAN. It would be an invitation on the part of the group, this particular group of officers of the court, to come in as a part of the machinery?

Justice GRONER. Yes.

Mr. CHANDLER. Judge Groner, in this bill, would it be inopportune to provide that the conference of judges, which is provided for in the

bill, shall set up standards of judicial ethics for the conduct of the judges of the Federal courts, and save us the embarrassment of passing this bill (H. R. 4038) that I have introduced?

I

Justice GRONER. I have seen that bill. I, personally, would not, at all, object to the provision that would fix standards of ethics. think it may be assumed that a man who is appointed to a judgeship will be conscious of ethical rules, what decent conduct and good behavior is; and I think it is rather a reflection upon the appointive power that he has to be told that he cannot do certain things. I do not believe these judges in the Federal judicial system would or could do any of the things which you say, under your ethical bill, are improper, without the consciousness that they were doing wrong.

A

The CHAIRMAN. That does not save the day, by any means. judge may be entirely conscious that he is doing wrong, but still does it.

Mr. CHANDLER. Well, the only difference would be the bill would make it a high misdemeanor, subject to impeachment.

Mr. GUYER. You assume they have ethical standards of their own? Justice GRONER. I assume they ought to have. I doubt very much whether anything will be accomplished by it, except make it easier to impeach a judge, but I do not believe we would get any better service by saying, "This is the rule of conduct by which you shall be guided." I would rather be guided by my conscience and by that sense of responsibility and honor of judicial office. But so far as I am concerned, I have no objection to it.

Mr. MACLAUGHLIN. Do you think that misconduct should be made punishable?

Justice GRONER. Yes. While I do not like to apply these questions personally, I should certainly feel that I had dishonored my office if I had been partial in the decision of a case, or done anything else for which I could be censured.

Mr. MCLAUGHLIN. Do you not think that ought to be made a crime, or ought to be made punishable? If a man has the charge made against him and it is upheld, should he not be punished?

The CHAIRMAN. Gentlemen, I think we have some witnesses here who have come from far away, and we have got visiting lawyers here, and we would like to accommodate as many of them as we can by expediting the hearing on the bill this morning.

Mr. CHANDLER. I was thinking about the advisability of putting a section in this bill, requiring the judges themselves to set up those standards which the American Bar Association promulgated in 1924, so there will be no question about their being followed."

Mr. CELLER. Would you make it a crime if they do not follow them?

Mr. CHANDLER. I was hoping to avoid that. One more question, if I may, Judge Groner, and that is this: Suppose this conference found that a judge, for instance, is quite far behind-and there are lots of them in the country who are far behind-can this conference say, "Judge, you must work a while this summer, instead of taking 90 days' vacation. You must work this summer." Can you do that?

Justice GRONER. Undoubtedly.

Mr. CHANDLER. That would be a fine thing.

Justice GRONER. The average district judge does not have enough to get away for 3 months. He is glad to get a 6 weeks' vacation.

Mr. CHANDLER. It would be surprising how many of them are gone from the 1st of July until the 1st of October. I have no feeling against the judges, but I think the responsibility rests on them to preserve the confidence of the people in the courts of this country; but I do say this, that the judges seem to be the last people to recognize these conditions. They do not realize what many people think about them. Their best friends won't tell them.

Mr. GUYER. They have been the bulwark of this country.

Mr. CHANDLER. Yes, they have; and I want them to stay that way. Justice GRONER. Mr. Chairman, I would be glad if you would hear from Judge Parker, very briefly.

STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN J. PARKER, SENIOR JUDGE, UNITED STATES CIRCUIT COURT FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

Judge PARKER. Mr. Chairman, my name is John J. Parker, and I am senior circuit judge of the fourth circuit. I live in Charlotte, N. C. I do not feel that I can add very much to what has been so well said by Judge Groner, except that I have been a United States circuit judge for nearly 14 years, and have been presiding judge of my circuit for nearly 10 years, and have had considerable experience in some of these matters, and it might be helpful for me to give the committee my views about the bill.

The CHAIRMAN. We would appreciate it if you would, Judge Parker. Judge PARKER. I have studied the bill very carefully. I served on Judge Groner's committee, and I have studied the subject that it deals with, in connection with the studies that were made by the American Bar Association last year by our section on judicial administration.

I unhesitatingly endorse what Judge Groner has said about it. It seems to me that the bill does three things: In the first place, it separates the judiciary from the executive department of the Government, and I think that is a salutary thing. I do not wish to be misunderstood about that. I do not mean to say that I think that the executive department has ever attempted to influence the judiciary by reason of the fact that it has control over the funds. I do not think that a judge has ever been influenced by the fact that his salary comes through the executive department, but it seems to me, as a matter of principle, that the judiciary should be divorced from the executive, and what is wrong in principle will ultimately prove mischievous in practice.

As I have heard it said by one of the judges of my State, it is not only important that justice be done, but it is important that people think that justice is being done and understand that it is being done; and as Attorney General Cummings well said in his address before the American Bar Association, there is something unseemly in the law when the chief law officer of the Government, who is appearing before the courts in so many important cases, has control over every facility of the judges' offices, and should be the one to whom the judges must apply for allowances for stationery, clerks, and stenographers, and for everything they have.

Now, it was the intent, of course, of the framers of our Constitution that the legislative department of the Government should have a check and balance on the judiciary and should have the power to say

what should and should not be spent by the judges for the carrying on of the judicial function; but I think it is in conflict with the division of powers which the Constitution contemplates to allow the executive department to formulate the budget for the judiciary.

You gentlemen, as representatives of another great independent branch of the Government, formulate your own budget, and it goes in just as does the budget of the Supreme Court for submission to you. I think it is proper that you should have the power to disallow any expenses that we may set up in our budget. It seems to me that this power should rest with the Congress and not with the Executive.

Fortunately, there is agreement, at this time, between the executive department and the judiciary as to the making of this change. I think it important that it be made now so there will be no danger of conflict in the future.

There is one other thought that occurs to me in connection with this, and I believe Mr. Holtzoff will corroborate my statement, that it will be easier for the judges themselves than for the executive department to formulate their budget and hold their expenditures within bounds. If you have some ambitious judge, with a desire to appoint unnecessary assistants or provide expensive quarters for himself, he will find that his proposal will receive a cool reception from a committee of judges when it appears that he is trying to get something better than his brethren.

I have no doubt that the financial affairs of the judiciary will be more efficiently administered, if possible, if the judiciary are charged with the responsibility for their administration.

As Judge Groner said, I believe this to be a very small part of this bill. The importance of the bill, to my mind, is in unifying the administration of justice in the hands of the chief judicial officers of the courts, and clothing them with responsibility for the exercise of that power.

Now, that is done in two ways: In the first place, we have the council of judges. This council is distinguished from the conference. The council is set up in each circuit, composed of the circuit judges of that circuit, generally men of considerable experience, men advanced in years, men who feel deeply the responsibility of judicial service.

Then, in the same place, the bill provides that they shall be furnished with the facts with respect to the administration of justice in their circuits, and they shall be furnished these facts in quarterly reports by the administrative officer. Now, the annual statistics, while of some value, are of very little value in judging what is going on in a circuit comprising five to eight States. It is almost impossible for the circuit judges to know exactly what is going on in each district.

I have only five States, and I try to know what is going on in each of the districts, but I find it a right difficult task to keep abreast of what they are doing. This will give me and my associates the aid of experts, analyzing the condition of affairs in each of the districts. I will know that the Eastern district of South Carolina, for instance, is falling behind, if it is falling behind, and why it is falling behind; and I will have that report quarterly, and I will have that report from a man who has been on the scene and will point out the cause of the difficulty. If a judge is sick, that will appear. If a judge is not sick, that will also appear; and then I shall have for solution of the problem the advice and assistance of my associates on the circuit bench.

Now, with your knowledge of human nature, you can understand it is one thing for me, as the senior circuit judge, to say to Judge Jones, "The work is getting behind in your district. You have a number of cases that ought to be decided. I think you should decide them." That is a very different thing from a council of all of the judges of the circuit saying, "Judge Jones, you are behind with your work and we think that the cases that you have under advisement ought to be decided, and we direct that they be decided, and we will send Judge Smith into your district and he will assist you in holding court in your ! district until this arrearage is cleared up.

In the first instance, Judge Jones will write back a letter of a polite sort and state to me that he is doing the best that he can do, and that conditions are not as bad as they appear and everything is going to be taken care of in a short while and he, personally, would prefer not to have any judge sent into his district, because he finds that a judge coming into his distruct disrupts the work, and so on.

In the second instance, he would get to work; and whether he got to work, or not, another judge would come into his district and help clear the work up.

In other words, you would have a man speaking with authority of x law and not merely exercising his personal and persuasive influence.

I think that that provision for a council in each circuit is one of the best provisions in the bill, in that it will centralize the responsibility in the circuit judges, and will give the circuit judges the power to utilize the judicial man power on each circuit to the best advantage.

The senior circuit judge now has the power to assign judges from one district to another within his circuit. He would never fail to exercise that power, if a council of his brethren advised him that it should be exercised to relieve the conditions in a particular district.

The CHAIRMAN. Judge, this tends also to center the responsibility upon the personnel who constitute the Circuit Court of Appeals?

Judge PARKER. That is correct, Mr. Chairman, precisely correct; and when you think of it, what we have done is this, up to this point: We have given to the Circuit Court of Appeals supervisory power over the decisions of the district judges, but we have given them no power whatever over administration by the district judges.

If Judge Jones decides a case contrary to the views of the majority of the Circuit Court of Appeals, we can tell him so and reverse him. But if he holds a case under advisement for 2 years, instead of deciding it promptly, there is nothing that we are authorized by the law to do about it in the absence of an application for mandamus. Now, this authorizes us to do something about it; and I agree with you that something ought to be done about it.

Mr. CHANDLER. Yes, you are right.

Judge PARKER. I think it will be helpful in a number of ways. Now, I will say this, if I might, with respect to the suggestion here of limitation of time for decision. I do not think you will have occasion for that, if this bill is enacted into law. There are always difficulties, as Judge Groner pointed out, in applying these time limits, but this council of judges will understand that it is charged with the responsibility for seeing that the work of the courts is carried on in the proper manner in their circuits, and they are going to see that the cases are promptly decided; and not only that, but they are going to tell the judges, or give the judges advice, about other matters that we could not foresee to legislate about in this bill.