The CHAIRMAN. Yes, I wish you would, so that we have some idea of the range that we are talking about. Also answer this-this is a question I should have asked of Judge Greene-I ask him because he is still here to cover this point if it is not covered in his prepared statement, as well as in the supplemental statement, as to how much staff in the court of general sessions, clerks, baliffs, reporters and all the necessary personnel. I will ask you to furnish the same amount. In addition let me ask you this question and if you have the answer now, fine. If not, supply it within 10 days.

(The information referred to follows:)

Hon. ALAN BIBLE,

THE JUVENILE COURT OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA,
Washington, D.C., June 5, 1968.

Chairman, Committee on the District of Columbia,
U.S. Senate, Washington, D.C.

DEAR SENATOR BIBLE: When I appeared before your committee on May 29, 1968 in support of the provision of S. 1731 which would add two judges to the bench of the Juvenile Court, you requested that I furnish the committee with estimates of the personnel and other costs involved in this expansion, as well as plans for space for additional judges. In response, may I submit the following information: First, as to space, the Juvenile Court presently occupies space on the second floor of 451 Indiana Avenue, N.W. It is planned to move the personnel now occupying this space and convert the area into two courtrooms, jury rooms, secretaries' offices and judges' chambers. I am attaching a very rough sketch of the area, drawn at our request by the D.C. Department of Buildings and Grounds, and showing how the area we presently occupy could be converted to accommodate the expansion. I am advised by the Department of Buildings and Grounds that the costs involved in converting this area according to the attached plan would amount to $50,000.

Second, as to personnel and other costs, it would be necessary to increase the staff of the court by 16 persons to accommodate the expansion of the court from three judges to five. This would include a secretary for each judge, a bailiff, courtroom clerk and court reporter for each judge, as well as an additional increase in the staff of the clerk's office of a summons clerk, a petitions clerk and a docket clerk for each judge.

The costs for personnel would be as follows:

Total personnel costs, exclusive of the judges' salaries would be $127,125. The judges' salaries, depending on the rate in effect at the time the court is expanded, would be either an additional $47,000 or an additional $55,000. Another cost, not chargeable to the District of Columbia appropriations but to the Department of Justice, would be two additional Deputy U.S. Marshals.

In order to provide space for the courtrooms, judges' chambers and offices required, it would be necessary to move some Juvenile Court personnel into rented space. The court has been considering moving some probation units to field locations to enable them better to serve probationers by being located in the areas where probationers reside, and this would necessitate moving ahead with those plans quite expeditiously. Approximately 4,000 square feet of space would be required and, while the cost, of course, would vary with the neighborhood and the type of space rented, the average cost to the District for rental space is $5.50 per square foot. Assuming that the space acquired for Juvenile Court would be the

average, this would amount to $22,000 per year. To recapitulate, the increased cost of expanding the Juvenile Court to a five-judge court would be:

Construction costs (nonrecurring)

Personnel costs

Judges' salaries

Space rental

$50, 000 127, 125 47,000 or 55, 000 22, 000

Furniture, furnishings, and equipment for courtrooms and chambers_-_- 20,000

I hope that the information outlined above will be helpful to your committee in its consideration of S. 1731 and I am grateful for the courtesy and interest you displayed when I appeared before your committee. I am very hopeful that S. 1731 will receive favorable consideration in this session of Congress.

Respectfully submitted.

MORRIS MILLER, Chief Judge.

The CHAIRMAN. Do you need statutory authority for the employment of the additional personnel?

Judge MILLER. No.

The CHAIRMAN. Or is that simply a funding matter where you need the legislation?

Judge MILLER. That is strictly money.

The CHAIRMAN. That is strictly money?

Judge MILLER. Yes.

The CHAIRMAN. That is an appropriation matter. I am satisfied as to the need. My question would be answered by your filing a supplemental statement.

Judge MILLER. All right.

The CHAIRMAN. That is simply to make the record clear as to what we are talking about in the way of additional staff and additional cost. I appreciate your statement very much.

Judge MILLER. Mr. Chairman, may I just add one sentence because I want to bring up to date for your convenience the statistical highlight table, which is an attachment to my prepared statement. That shows that the total juvenile referrals for the month of April 1968 was 683. That was the second highest month in the history of the court.

However, for the first 3 weeks of May, we have already exceeded that 683 to 686. In other words, we are already higher with a week more to go than we were during the second highest month in the history of the court.

The CHAIRMAN. That certainly points out the urgency of the problem. I do not think there is any question about it. We will move with dispatch on this and try to be of help to you. It certainly is something that has to be done. Thank you.

Our next witness will be John Powell, president of the Bar Association of the District of Columbia, accompanied by Mr. Austin F. Canfield, Jr., chairman of the District of Columbia Court of General Sessions committee. Would you like to approach as well, Mr. Canfield. You may handle it jointly or severally or in any way that you want. If you have a long prepared statement it will be made a part of the record.

Mr. Powell, will you proceed.

STATEMENT OF JOHN E. POWELL, PRESIDENT OF THE BAR ASSOCIATION OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, ACCOMPANIED BY AUSTIN F. CANFIELD, JR., CHAIRMAN OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT OF GENERAL SESSIONS COMMITTEE, THE BAR ASSOCIATION OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

Mr. POWELL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, I come to report to the committee that the association recommends that the court of general sessions be increased from 21 to 25, and that the salaries of judges of that court and of the District of Columbia Court of Appeals be increased $4,000.

These were the recommendations contained in the report of the Committee on the Administration of Justice of this circuit. It is known for short as the Gesell report.

In the past the association also has supported the various measures that have been advanced to ameliorate the retirement benefits of the judges of the court of general sessions, and on this ground we likewise support the Senate bill which has to do with that. That is S. 2465.

The Gesell report did not recommend an increase in the size of the juvenile court of the District, and accordingly I have no mandate to speak with respect to that issue.

The CHAIRMAN. Do you do any legal practice yourself in juvenile court. Do you speak as a practicing lawyer or not?

Mr. POWELL. I do a very limited amount of practice there. I have one case currently in that court. I might say this speaking only as an individual. That it is somewhat tied up with the problems to which the chairman referred a moment ago, the future of the court itself as an independent court as opposed to its becoming a branch of the District of Columbia Court of General Sessions.

The CHAIRMAN. I realize that, Mr. Powell. Of course we want to do a workmanlike and thorough job. The only reason I made my observation on it is that it does seem to be of great urgency and a compelling reason for more manpower in the present juvenile court. It may be that we will have to recast, rephrase, and work out a completely new court system. I cannot see anything in adding additional manpower to the juvenile court system as it exists today that would in any way run counter to whatever kind of organization we ultimately come up with. There is this need now and I am afraid, as I have expressed myself earlier, that with the session drawing to a close and the desire to complete our legislative labors by August 1st, any type of a complicated bill might just get lost in the rush. I believe that would be a little unfortunate.

Mr. POWELL. Speaking again personally, I agree with the remarks of the chairman. I personally think that even increasing the size of the court of general sessions to 26 is not going to solve the long-range problems of that court. I think in the very near future the court is going to have to be enlarged beyond that figure. I think the same is true of the juvenile court. The three judges of the court, as of today, are certainly inadequate to dispose of its business. I do not think six would do it.

I do not know in the long run what will be required.

The CHAIRMAN. Something must be done. We agree on that.
Mr. POWELL. We certainly agree.

The CHAIRMAN. The only other additional point that came up was about the judge of the Tax Court. There we have a little Orphan Annie. I suppose if we raise everybody else's salary there is no reason in the world why we should not raise the salary of the judge in the Tax Court.

Mr. POWELL. I think it should be done and I would like to point out that Judge Morgan was not speaking in his own behalf because he will retire in the next couple of months.

The CHAIRMAN. He made that very clear.

Mr. POWELL. Yes. He was really speaking for his successor whoever that may be.

The CHAIRMAN. You heard me say that the District government did not offer an amendment to take care of it because it had not knownMr. POWELL. It is very important.

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Canfield, is there anything you would like to add?

Mr. CANFIELD. Yes, I would, Mr. Chairman. I was at the House District hearings just a couple of weeks ago and that amendment that you spoke of was offered on behalf of Judge Morgan to correct that situation, in the House bills.

I have spent 14 years with the court of general sessions as a practicing attorney in private practice, and I have seen the demise, so to speak, of the civil calendar take place over the last several years.

The CHAIRMAN. Is it because of the increased criminal activity? Mr. CANFIELD. There are many reasons for it.

The CHAIRMAN. Is that one of them?

Mr. CANFIELD. That would be one. Another reason would be the certification of cases from the United States district court to the court of general sessions following the increase of jurisdiction to $10,000. I can remember when Mr. Malone, your counsel, was practicing along with me in that court. We were doing defense work and I do principally defense work in that court when we had to face a trial within a period of 4 months on the jury civil side. That was so rapid that many attorneys felt we could not adequately prepare our cases in that time. That 4 months was only in 1963. It was in 1963 that the jurisdiction was increased, and to give you some statistics, which may not be incorporated in your record, I have taken the liberty of looking at what the cases were at issue for the years of 1960 to date. In 1960, on the jury calendar, there were 933 cases at issue. In 1961 it dropped down to 786. In 1962 it dropped down to 625. In 1963 it went up to 726. In 1964 it almost doubled to 1,334. In 1965 it increased approximately 45 percent to 1,943. In 1966 it increased almost 45 percent again to 2,792 cases. In 1967 it increased from 20 to 25 percent to a total of 3,412. In 1968, currently as of the end of April there were 3,427 cases actually awaiting trial on the jury side.

This does not include those cases which are not at issue, which total some approximately 2,000. We are fast approaching a 6,000-case backlog on the civil side. It cannot be permitted to continue.

The CHAIRMAN. I suppose if it is permitted to continue they would probably die?

Mr. POWELL. Quite often that happens. I have another statistic which is pretty indicative of what is happening. In the month of April when we had our riots in Washington or civil disturbances, the majority of the judges were sitting on the criminal side. At that time we had