Statement of amounts paid to special assistants from the appropriation "Pay of special assistant attorneys, United States courts, 1923," during the period July 1, 1923, to March 20, 1924-Continued. Statement of amounts paid to special assistants from the appropriation "Pay of special assistant attorneys, United States courts, 1924," during the period July 1, 1923, to March 20, 1924-Continued. NOTE.-In order to save recopying and making a new statement to supply the information requested by Congressman Oliver, special assistant attorneys whose appointments provide that their compensation will be determined and who have not as yet completed their services, are noted on the above statement by (). These attorneys are now employed in the same class of cases respectively as is set forth opposite the name of each under the column "Classes of cases in which employed" in the foregoing statement. There has been no agreement to pay any of them a fixed amount, inasmuch as the compensation of each, which will be finally allowed, will be determined and fixed upon the basis of the services actually rendered. Inasmuch as many of the above-mentioned attorneys are employed in special classes of cases, it is impossible, within the limited time available, to furnish the list of cases by titles in which they are now rendering services. This information can, in most cases, only be secured by correspondence with the United States attorneys of the several districts. DUTIES AND ACTIVITIES OF SPECIAL ASSISTANTS AND REGULAR ASSISTANTS. Mr. HARRIS. I might put this into the record at this timeprobably the committee will want it as to the employments made under this appropriation. All special assistants are employed under the provisions of section 363; certificates are required as provided in section 365; and commissions are issued as provided in section 366 of the Revised Statutes. There has been somewhat of an uncertainty as to what a special assistant is and what a regular assistant is, as we testified the other day. Mr. OLIVER. Suppose you give us that here. Mr. HARRIS. There has been-I would not say an uncertainty, but an argument as to what is a regular assistant and what is a special assistant, and that question was fully discussed in the Crosthwaite case (168 U. S. 375), as I testified the other day, and also in Fourth Comptroller, 490, which are the governing decisions with the accounting officers in settling or passing on vouchers of special assistants. A regular assistant is one who discharges the regular duties of the office all manner of cases, everything that comes up in the office; the regular routine duties. A special assistant is employed in a special case or special class of cases, or for limited periods, as set forth in the decision to which I referred. They can not be employed and paid regularly, year in and year out, and discharge the regular duties of the United States attorney's office. Mr. OLIVER. We have limited the number who are to be employed as regular assistants, have we not? Mr. HARRIS. By the appropriation, yes; by the amount of the appropriation. The same thing applies here. Mr. OLIVER. Well, under the appropriation for regular assistants you would not employ any one without having an agreed price? Mr. HARRIS. No. Those employments are only upon annual compensation, because the maximum compensation is limited by the appropriation to $3,500 per annum except in the southern district of New York, the northern district of Illinois, and the eastern district of Pennsylvania. Mr. OLIVER. And only under the appropriation for special assistants would you feel authorized to employ without agreeing in advance as to a definite amount to be paid for services rendered? Mr. HARRIS. Oh, no. We can employ special assistants under the antitrust appropriation, which provides for counsel, with compensation to be determined; also under the appropriation for prosecution of war frauds. Those are the three appropriations. NAMES, SALARY, COMPENSATION, ETC., OF SPECIAL ASSISTANTS IN ANTITRUST CASES, AND PROSECUTION OF WAR FRAUDS. Mr. OLIVER. Now, in order that we may avoid repetition, under the several appropriations to which you have referred, of the same question that Mr. Tinkham has asked under this appropriation, followed by the questions that he and I have asked after his general question, I will ask that you now consider that those same questions |