On There is another deplorable situation obtaining with regard to prisoners. arraignment and sentence days, we sometimes have to place as many as 50 to 80 prisoners in one poorly ventilated cell, where they cannot all possibly sit down at the same time and where it is virtually impossible for lawyers to have conferences with them. Of course, the unsanitary conditions on these days are shocking. CONFUSION CAUSED BY LACK OF SPACE We have encountered very serious problems of another kind in view of the necessity of occupying different buildings. Witnesses in civil cases report to the District Court Building. If the case in which they are involved is tried before one of the three judges in the Municipal Court-Criminal Division Building, they must be sent or taken to that building. The same situation applies to criminal cases. Despite the careful efforts of court attachés to direct witnesses to the courtroom where they are needed, they are continually getting lost. Often we have judges delayed and unable to proceed with a case until lost witnesses can be found. I regret to say that on more than one occasion we have issued an attachment for a missing witness and had the police and deputy marshals out searching for him at his home and office only to find that by mistake he had been sitting all day in the wrong building. NO ADEQUATE SPACE FOR JURORS The same problem arises with respect to jurors. Jurors in criminal cases are assigned to a specific court. However, if a first-degree murder or other capital case is being tried in one of our criminal courts or if a judge tries three or four cases in one day, it is often necessary to borrow jurors from one of the other courts. Time and again jurors have lost their way and delayed the trial of a case. The space we are able to allot jurors for waiting rooms while waiting call into the courtrooms is wholly inadequate. They have to loiter standing up in the corridors or sitting on steps. On one occasion recently while in the main District Court Building, I had to walk down the steps from the third to the second floor and there were from two to four jurors sitting on each step. There is a deplorable lack of proper toilet and washroom facilities for the jurors and witnesses. Many of our prominent citizens who have served as jurors and witnesses have complained of such treatment, but we have been unable to find a solution. The keeping of jurors and witnesses in the corridors hinders the administration of justice; while waiting jurors have heard conversations and remarks of lawyers, witnesses, or others which might directly prejudice a case on trial. There is a shortage of rooms for the use of jurors when actually deliberating on a case. We have had instances where a judge has submitted a case to the jury and then, because other juries were deliberating in the jury rooms, they have been forced to either sit in the courtroom or stand in the corridors until one of the other juries reached a verdict and vacated the deliberating room or until one of the judges adjourned court and his courtroom was available. These waits at times have been protracted. Within the last few months we were forced to prolong the services of a special grand jury over an unusually long period of time and to interrupt an important case under consideration by that grand jury in order to make it possible to consider another urgent case being heard by a different grand jury. On November 25, 1947, a special grand jury was impaneled to consider the so-called boxcar case. While this case was still being heard, the Attorney General had another very important case which he wanted presented before the grand jury involving charges against certain milk distributors for alleged violation of the antitrust law. There was no room available for two special grand juries. The result was the boxcar grand jury had to suspend its hearings in order to permit the antitrust case against the milk distributors to be heard. After the latter case was disposed of, the boxcar grand jury resumed its hearings. Two of our courtrooms in the district courthouse are so small that they do not contain a box for jurors. On occasions we have had to cause judges to go from one building to another to hold court, if we could find a courtroom that was not in use at that moment. Of course, judges continually must go from one building to another if they wish to consult with their brethren. The waste of time is more important than the inconvenience. AGENCIES UNABLE TO WORK WITH MAXIMUM EFFICIENCY The agencies of the court are so cramped for space that they cannot operate with maximum efficiency. The United States attorney's office is so crowded that he has two assistants in every room and three in some. These assistants must H. Repts., 80-2, vol. 2-81 interview witnesses and otherwise prepare their cases for trial-cases which often are of vital importance to the Government. When one assistant is talking with witnesses, the other who shares his office often is forced to take his witnesses elsewhere and on occasions a file room, which also houses the clerical staff of the office, has had to be used. There is no place for witnesses to wait while in the United States attorney's office, so they must stand or sit in the corridor or on the steps. The same situation obtains in the office of the probation officer. He has from two to three assistants, each in a small room. These employees must interview defendants and witnesses in criminal cases in order to prepare reports for the sentencing judge. This office also has no place for these witnesses to wait so they add further to the cluttering of the corridors. The Domestic Relations Commissioner and his staff of four occupy one small room approximately 16 by 26 feet. These employees make investigations, talk with the parties, and prepare reports for the court on all matters of maintenance and alimony in domestic-relations cases. Under a recent decision of the United States Court of Appeals, the judges of the district court must now have a thorough investigation made of the homes of separated parents and recommendations with respect to custody of minor children. This work will have to be done by the Domestic Relations Commissioner and his staff. The work of this office has increased to such an extent recently that it must have more employees. Arrangements for additional personnel can be worked out with the Administrative Office of United States Courts but there isn't any space for additional employees. For 2 years we have tried to solve this situation, but there is no solution so long as office space is lacking. The Assignment Commissioner and his staff of six occupy two small rooms in the District Court Building. This office assigns all cases for trial. Confusion exists in that office as the result of cramped quarters sometimes resulting in delay in starting trials. The office of the Register of Wills needs two times the space it now occupies and is desperate for a place to keep its vital records respecting wills and administration of estates. The inconvenience of having court records scattered in nine different buildings is readily apparent. If a judge has a case before him for trial or under advisement and the auditor or the clerk need that case in connection with their work, the time lost in tracking down and bringing back this material is completely wasted. INCREASING VOLUME OF CASES Evidence of the increased volune in the number of cases handled by the courts affected by this legislation is given in the following data submitted to the Committee on Public Works by Chief Justice Laws: MARCH 20, 1948. Memorandum for the Chief Justice. DEAR MR. CHIEF JUSTICE: The attached is an analysis of the cases commenced in the District Court of the United States for the District of Columbia during the fiscal year 1945, the last fiscal year of the war, and the cases commenced in the said district court during the fiscal year 1946, the first postwar fiscal year, and the cases commenced in the said district court during the fiscal year 1947. The statement clearly shows that during the first postwar year there was a marked increase in all classes of cases. The divorce cases filed during the fiscal year 1946 show an increase of 1,197 cases over the preceding fiscal year. The divorce cases filed during the fiscal year 1947 show a decrease of 833 cases from the number of cases filed during the preceding fiscal year 1946. Deducting divorce cases for the fiscal years 1945, 1946, and 1947 from the total number of cases filed shows an increase, exclusive of divorce cases, of 10.71 plus percent in 1946 over 1945; and an increase of 9.32 plus percent in 1947 over 1946. These figures clearly show that the filing of divorce cases is declining to a more normal number, and that the filing of all cases other than divorce cases is definitely increasing. Our experience in recent years has shown a greater number of protracted trials and it is believed by this office that this trend will continue. If this is so, of course, it is to be expected that the trial work will become heavier even though the gross number of new cases filed may become slightly less. In the event there is any additional information which you may desire, I shall be very pleased to furnish it. Respectfully submitted. HARRY M. HULL, Clerk. ANALYSIS OF CASES COMMENCED IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA DURING THE FISCAL YEARS 1945, 1946, AND 1947 Increase of business in 1947 over 1945, not including divorce cases. 6, 770 1, 178 21. 06 Increase of business in 1947 over 1946, not including divorce cases.... ----- 577 9. 32 SUMMARY OF ALL CASES FILED DURING FISCAL YEARS 1941 TO 1947 Testimony by Chief Justice Harold M. Stephens of the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia: In a democracy such as ours we keep order and we determine the controversies between citizens and between citizens and the Government by the operation of free and independent courts, and not through the use of the military, as occurs in dictatorships. It follows that we must keep, and we must spend the money necessary to keep, our fundamental institutions of democracy in an efficient working condition, and in a condition which will maintain the respect of the public for the administration of justice; because it is the respect for the administration of justice in the courts that is the ultimate sanction for the enforcement of law in this country. Only through confidence in the courts and respect for judicial institutions do we preserve order in a democracy; and it is our duty, therefore, as judges, and your duty as Congressmen, to see to it that we have the housing facilities which are necessary for the adequate and respectable administration of justice. I say to you, gentlemen, that the present manner of the administration of justice in the district court of the United States is not conducive to public respect. It is not conducive to confidence in the courts to continue this situation. * * * I think it is of the utmost importance that the fundamental institutions, the Congress and executive branch and the courts, be housed and equipped with facilities which will permit them to discharge their respective functions in a manner which will impress the people with the efficiency and the propriety and desirability of democracy as distinguished from totalitarian institutions. CONCLUSION The Committee on Public Works, by unanimous vote, approved the authorization of construction, it being shown by the evidence presented that: 1. Present facilities are inadequate for the proper administration of justice and demand immediate action. 2. Dangerous situations arise in the handling of prisoners and the safety of the public endangered. 3. There are no adequate provisions for jurors. 4. The various agencies connected with the work of the courts are unable to function with maximum efficiency. 5. The number of cases handled is increasing steadily and it will be necessary to increase the number of judges. 6. Many other factors exist which impair the functioning of the courts. On the basis of the evidence submitted, the Committee on Public Works considered the structure to come within the emergency classification of public building construction. Personal inspection of the court facilities in 1947 by members of the Committee on Public Works revealed deplorable conditions that should not be permitted to continue. O MARCH 30, 1948.-Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union and ordered to be printed Mr. TABER, from the Committee on Appropriations, submitted the following REPORT [To accompany H. R. 6055] The Committee on Appropriations submits the following report in explanation of the accompanying bill making appropriations to supply deficiencies in certain appropriations for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1948, and for other purposes. The estimates upon which the bill is based are contained in House Documents Nos. 502, 519-521, 535, 537-544, 550, 556, 557, 564, and 567. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE An additional amount of $2,212,000 is provided for congressional printing and binding and is attributable largely to increased costs. A substantial item, however at least $435,000-represents the cost of work done during the fiscal year 1947, but charged against appropriations for the fiscal year 1948. The committee was appalled to learn that the accounting system at the Government Printing Office has not recognized appropriate differentiation between fiscal years either with respect to congressional printing and binding, or work done for the Government departments. A thorough investigation of this situation is now being conducted by the committee and will be made the subject of further comment in connection with the legislative appropriation bill for 1949. Another item provides $650,000 for the office of the Superintendent of Documents, which is a deficiency in large part accumulated from |