think it would enable the district judges who make the appointments to United States commissioner offices to be able to perhaps interest a more responsible and a better qualified person.

Mr. BARTLETT. Well, the commissioners in smaller places couldn't possibly hope to receive the maximum, in any case.

Mr. PLUMMER. No, that is true. But I have endeavored in my statement, and I hope I have succeeded, to point out the vast responsibility that the person holding that office has as compared to an individual who is perhaps city attorney, district attorney, or who holds some position where he has one responsibility.

Then with respect to the court facilities and the additional judge, I believe there has been other testimony on that, and I merely wish to add my voice on that proposition, because it is something that we need quite badly here in the third division.

With that, I will not take any more of your time unless you have some questions that I may be able to answer.

Mr. DAWSON. If I remember the figures given us the other day, the chart which was presented, it would indicate that the caseload had been going up tremendously here in the third division.

Mr. PLUMMER. That is true.

Mr. DAWSON. The present judge has tried more cases and disposed of more than disposed of in the past, but the caseload has been going up so fast it is creeping up some. Is that correct?

Mr. PLUMMER. That is true.

Now I might give you some background on that. In 1944 when I arrived here I think there were 8 practicing attorneys here in town and 1 district judge and 1 court. At the present time I would venture there are 45 to 50 attorneys and 1 court and 1 district judge, and each year when the bar exams are given there are from 8 to-well, that settle here in the third division, I would say from 6 to 10 attorneys come in, and the population has grown. There is more litigation. But yet we still have the 1 judge and the 1 court facility.

Mr. DAWSON. It is my understanding the judge is current on his criminal cases but approximately 5 years behind on civil cases.

Mr. PLUMMER. I think that is a fairly accurate statement, yes. Mr. DAWSON. And I have heard since I have been up here a number of cases where people had had permanent injuries, still going around with their injuries, unable to get their case to trial because they are back that length of time.

Mr. PLUMMER. That is true. I don't personally complain about that because I am a defense attorney, but I do know that to be a fact. Mr. TAYLOR. Mr. Plummer, you are not United States commissioner?

Mr. PLUMMER. No, I came to Alaska in 1944 under appointment as assistant United States attorney, served to 1946. From 1946 to 1949 I served as United States attorney, and I have been engaged in private practice since 1949.

Mr. TAYLOR. In presenting this, you would have no ax to grind, no financial ax to grind at all?

Mr. PLUMMER. No. It has been something because of my relationship or appointment as United States attorney. I traveled throughout the third division. I have general information as to the situation here. And in the practice of law I come into contact with the commissioner's office here quite frequently.

Mr. DAWSON. I would like to ask Mr. Bartlett, if the Judicial Coun

cil has recommended that an additional judge be appointed here in Alaska?

Mr. PLUMMER. Yes, that is true.

Mr. DAWSON. And when the omnibus judge bill came up here 2 years ago, I believe it was, why was not the additional judge for Alaska included?

Mr. BARTLETT. I wish I could answer that. I cannot. The bill was passed by the Senate and the House Judiciary Committee struck some 20 judges from the bill, including Alaska's new judge at Anchorage. That bill then went to conference and never emerged therefrom. We have had a record in respect to our attempts to get this bill through. It is comparable in a sense to statehood because it will go through (a)

Mr. DAWSON. This bill did pass both Houses of Congress on the judges?

Mr. BARTLETT. But not with the twenty-odd judges that the House committee struck from the provisions of the bill.

Mr. DAWSON. I assume you use that word "odd" as part of the number, not descriptively.

Mr. BARTLETT. I would not make such a remark regarding the esteemed judiciary.

Mr. DAWSON. That was not the reason these 20 were excluded? Mr. BARTLETT. No; because they had not been named. It could not be applied to them.

Mr. DAWSON. I have examined your record in some detail, not only as to this, but before, the last few days, and it is just shameful the conditions up here. I just cannot conceive of a situation like that existing, being 5 years behind on civil cases. Yet the judge is trying more cases, I believe, than practically any other Federal judge right in this district and disposing of more cases, and yet this thing is still creeping up on him. I will certainly do my part in seeing that you get that Judge. I think we can do something on that, too.

Mr. PLUMMER. I might just, in closing, make this comment: The judge who was Judge McCarrey's predecessor, Judge Dimond-perhaps some of you may have been associated with him in Congressbut the hours that that man worked. Of course, Judge McCarrey is doing the same except he is a younger man. I think Judge Dimond was overworked, and I think that the amount of overwork he did contributed to his death. Judge McCarrey is working just as diligently. He is a younger man and bearing up under the strain, but he has no time for civic affairs, very little time with his family, and it is just too much of a burden to ask any man to do that.

Mr. BARTLETT. It is not fair.

Mr. PLUMMER. It is not.

Mr. BARTLETT. And it is not fair to the litigants.
Mr. PLUMMER. No; who want their cases heard.

Mr. BARTLETT. Thank you very much, Mr. Plummer.
Mr. PLUMMER. Thank you.

(The statement submitted by Mr. Plummer follows:)

ANCHORAGE ALASKA, September 21, 1955.

The HONORABLE CHAIRMAN AND MEMBERS,
Subcommittee on Territo ial and Insuar Affairs,

House of Represe tatives,

Washington, D. C.

SIRS: I wish to be heard briefly on a matter of importance to the people of Alaska the administration of justice in courts of first instance and the dis

As a

charge of certain collateral functions which are quasi-judicial in nature. member of the Alaska bar and former United States attorney for the third division, district of Alaska, I am familiar with judicial and quasi-judicial problems in Alaska and, more particularly, in the third division. As a practicing attorney and resident of the Territory, I am seriously concerned that our courts operate pursuant to law and within traditional American concepts of justice.

You are informed that the administration of justice in Alaska is reserved to the National Government under the Organic Act. The United States District Court for the District of Alaska, which functions in four divisions, is the court of general jurisdiction. The United States district judges, each within his own division, ha e the administrati e responsibilities which customarily pertain to such position, including the appointment of United States commissioners. But Alaska is unique in the Federal judicial system in that the United States commissioners, ex officio, preside over the justice and probate courts for the Territory of Alaska and are the recorders and coroners within their respective precincts and recording districts. The United States district judge, by order, delimits by metes and bounds their respective areas of authority. Since the majority of criminal and civil cases in Alaska are heard in the justice's court, and since the probate court has exclusive original jurisdiction over those matters falling within its purview, a resident of Alaska is keenly aware of the vital role the United States commissioner plays in the judicial process. The coroner's function is essential to the unco ering of serious crimes and the establishing of the cause of death. You know the importance of the recorder in the maintenance of records upon which rest very substantial personal and property interests and which introduce some element of order into many transactions of private and public interest.

The discharge of those duties which have traditionally vested in the United States commissioner requires a relatively small percentage of the time of the commissioner in Alaska. Since felony charges in Alaska are tried before the United States district court, the commissioner, in that capacity, holds preliminary hearings and sets bail for those so charged. He likewise, as commissioner, issues warrants of arrest, search and seizure. But the bulk of criminal cases, in Alaska as elsewhere, are misdemeanors and are heard by the justice's court.

Federal statutes limit a United States commissioner to a maximum of $7,500 annually. The statute which is applicable to commissioners in Alaska is section 116 (a), title 48, United States Code, as amended by 66 Statutes 592. The amendment, which took effect on July 12, 1952, increased the maximum from $5,000 to the current $7,500 per year, which is admittedly a substantial increase percentagewise, but is quite inadequate by other considerations. The maximum of $7,500 for commissioners elsewhere than in Alaska is prescribed by section 633 (b), title 28, United States Code, which has been in effect since 1948. You will note that no distinction is made with respect to maximum emoluments between the commissioner in Alaska and the commissioner elsewhere, although, as a matter of law, Congress has held that the cost of living in Alaska justifies a differential of 25 percent between Federal employees in Alaska and those in continental United States. This differential is exempt from Federal income taxes and the percentage, in practice, is actually greater than 25 percent. The United States commissioner is not a Federal employee within the meaning of recent legislation providing increased compensation for Federal employees and he has not enjoyed the consideration shown others charged with Federal responsibilities.

I think we should distinguish for practical purposes among the commissioners in Alaska, although I urge that action be taken, whether legislative or administrative, to bring some financial relief to all commissioners. In the major centers of population in Alaska, e. g. Anchorage, Fairbanks, Juneau, and Ketchikan, and possibly in communities somewhat smaller, e. g. Seward, Nome, and Kodiak, the duties of the commissioner are such as to preclude his being engaged in any other gainful occupation. He must support himself and his family at the level expected of a prominent official and he must participate actively in community life-and this must be accomplished on a salary substantially below that paid to other persons in public service, municipal, Territorial and Federal, who hold positions inferior to his in responsibility and the knowledge and skills required. In the small communities, of course, the demands upon the commissioners are proportionately less and he probably realizes the bulk of his income from other activities.

I do not have current statistics on the cost of living in Alaska and I have been informed that the Bureau of Labor Statistics, Department of Labor, no longer makes such studies in Alaska. I believe that the Alaska Railroad made a fairly exhaustive report on the cost of living in Alaska, but that report is not a public document. Probably the Department of the Interior, the Civil Service Commis

sion, Department of Commerce and other Federal agencies peculiarly interested in such matters have statistics relating to costs in Alaska. But the members of this subcommittee have been in Alaska for the past several days and undoubtedly realize that costs in Alaska are very substantially higher than in the States.

I think it relevant to the subject before us that I supply a table which reflects the wages paid certain representative classes of labor, skilled and unskilled, in the Anchorage area. These data will be found on enclosure No. 1 to this statement. You may also find it helpful to note the compensation paid certain other positions in Anchorage in which the incumbent must be an attorney. The United States attorney receives $15,000 per year, the Anchorage city attorney $12,000, as does the regional attorney for the Civil Aeronautics Commission, and the attorney at the Alaska Railroad receives just under $11,000 annually. The Anchorage city magistrate, whose jurisdiction is limited to police court matters and a maximum punishment of 30 days in jail and/or $300 fine, receives $6,600 annually, although he is occupied in this capacity less than one-half of each day on a 5-day week and is otherwise free to engage in the private practice of law. The least paid assistant United States attorney in Alaska receives compensation equal to the maximum allowed the United States commissioner.

I know, of course, that there is no requirement that the United States commissioner be an attorney and, insofar as I am informed, only the United States commissioners at Anchorage and Cordova and the Deputy United States commissioner at Anchorage are attorneys. But I believe, and this view is certainly shared by other members of the Alaska bar, that, wherever possible, the United States commissioner should be an attorney, which is an obvious requisite to the professional administration of a judicial tribunal. Although the jurisdiction of the United States commissioner in Alaska as ex officio justice of the peace is limited to misdemeanors and money or personal property claims in a value not exceeding $1,000 the relative seriousness of the offense or the amount claimed are not always accurate measures of the questions of law which may arise. A person charged with a criminal offense, however petty, is entitled to have his case adjudicated according to law and to be tried under accepted procedures; litigants before the court should have their interests determined on the basis of substantive and procedural law and not subjective criteria or other improper considerations. Since the action of forcible entry and detainer falls within the jurisdiction of the justice's court, property interests of a value far in excess of $1,000 may be in question. The probate court adjudicates property interests without statutory limitations of value and, with respect to adoptions, guardianships, and sanity hearings, issues decrees and orders touching upon the most personal of relationships and rights. The lay administration of justice is no longer either necessary or adequate in the major cities of Alaska. As communications continue to improve, we may likewise anticipate the extension of professionally directed courts to the more isolated areas of Alaska.

You are familiar with the arrangements in your several areas of residence for the judicial and quasi-judicial services here provided through the United States commissioner. The clerk of the county or circuit court probably is the recorder; estate matters are the function of separate probate courts; adoptions, guardianships, and sanity inquiries are within the jurisdiction of a court of general jurisdiction or, in the larger communities, special tribunals have been created, e. g., domestic relations courts. The juvenile court, in Alaska a part of the justice's court, is elsewhere often also a special tribunal. Separate bureaus of vital statistics are maintained. In Alaska, however, all of these functions are the responsibility of one officer, sometimes assisted by a deputy, neither of whom is as well compensated as many officials elsewhere who are responsible only for one aspect of their manifold duties. The Anchorage precinct has a civilian population upward of 60,000. There are an additional 20,000 or more military personnel and dependents of military personnel, who likewise are served by the United States commissioner in one or more of his several capacities.

Funds are not appropriated for the United States commissioners in Alaska, in whatever capacity they may function, although fees, as prescribed by statute or the Administrative Office of the United States Courts, are collected from those who use their services. Criminal cases, coroner's inquests and sanity hearings are charged to the United States and the recording of births and deaths and juvenile hearings are charged to the Territory of Alaska. All other fees are collected from private persons or private or public agencies who may utilize the facilities of the justice of probate court, who may wish to record any appropriate instrument or who receive a notarial service. The amount of money available for the operation of the several functions of the United States commissioner is approximately in proportion to the quantity of services rendered. That portion of the

earnings of the commissioner, in whatever capacity received, which is excess to the expenses of his operations, including salaries, taxes, and supplies, is forwarded quarterly to the clerk of the appropriate division of the United States District Court for Alaska for deposit in fund C. Fines levied in the justice's court are also deposited quarterly with the clerk of court, but are not included in the earnings of the commissioner.

Since the statute provides that the United States commissioner's compensation shall not exceed the prescribed limitation, there is, up to the amount of the limitation, a parallel between the amount of work he performs and the compensation he receives. But the limitation of $7,500 is so inadequate by Alaska standards, considering the responsibilities of the office and the compensation paid others in both private and public employment, that it places a particular hardship on the commissioner who is appointed to a precinct which includes 1 of the 4 major centers of population. The Territory recognizes a cost of living differential of 15 percent between westward and southeastern Alaska, which indicates that the limitation is even more unfortunate for the commissioners at Anchorage and Fairbanks.

The fees which are collected or credited to a United States commissioner are public funds no less than moneys realized from taxation, but, for the purpose of this dicussion, I think a valid distinction can and should be made and that it would be fair to note that the maximum compensation of the United States commissioner in Alaska could be raised to an adequate level without the additional appropriation of public moneys or an increase in the Federal budget. Fund C in Alaska would not suffer a substantial loss, nor would other essential judicial services be adversely affected, were the United States commissioners in Alaska to receive compensation commensurate with their duties and responsibilities.

I attach as enclosure No. 2 a summary by categories of the activities and earnings of the United States commissioner's office at Anchorage for the calendar year 1954 and for the first 8 months of 1955. You will see clearly that there is a very substantial surplus from which the commissioner's compensation could be increased.

I firmly believe that any amendment of the law with respect to the compensation of United States commissioners in Alaska should take cognizance of the qualifications of the incumbent in determining the limitation to be placed upon his compensation. The commissioner's duties are principally judicial in nature. I think it only fair to assume that the person who is professionally qualified in the law will perform those duties better than a layman. It is not unusual in government and elsewhere to provide a different rate of compensation based upon the applicant's qualifications for a position. Aside from the equity of such an arrangement, the professionally qualified person will be encouraged to accept an appointment where the fact of his peculiar qualification is properly recognized and he is not placed upon the same basis as the layman. Were the compensation to be adequate, and were special recognition to be given those properly qualified, I believe that the number of suitable candidates from which the district judge. could choose a commissioner would be substantially greater and that higher standards could be demanded and expected. Of course, much of Alaska is sparsely populated and many of her people still reside in relatively remote villages. I do not anticipate that attorneys will settle in these villages, but I do believe that the general administration of the functions of the commissioner would be very much improved were more professional people appointed to these positions. The possibility of the professionally qualified commissioner going on "circuit" in his ex officio judicial capacities is probably within the discretion of the district judge of the division in which the commissioner resides.

Because I am resident in the third division and because this subcommittee is now sitting in Anchorage for the purpose of hearing views and comments with particular relevance to this area, I wish to emphasize a condition of peculiarly local significance. The Judicial Conference which met in Washington in September 1954 approved the resolution of the Judicial Conference of the Ninth Circuit which called for an additional district judge at Anchorage and adequate court facilities. We have had some encouraging reports to the effect that additional facilities will be constructed for the district court and other agencies concerned with the enforcement of the laws and the administration of justice. The lack of such facilities is proving a very serious barrier to the effective operations of the United States district court for the third division, the United States commissioner for the Anchorage precinct and the United States attorney for the third division. Certainly, the district judge at Anchorage has not the time to supervise closely the administration of the several commissioners, nor should his already overburdened calendar be further taxed with appellate matters from the justice