now apply in Alaska. They were, however, made applicable to the district courts of Hawaii by act of Congress approved June 19, 1939 (53 Stat. 841; U. S. C., title 48, sec. 646), and to Puerto Rico by the act of Congress approved February 12, 1940 (54 Stat. 22; U. Š. C., title 48, sec. 873a). The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure have worked with great success to improve the administration of justice in the district courts of the United States and in the Territory of Hawaii and in Puerto Rico. They have been adopted in substance by the State courts in a number of States. There seems no doubt that their application by the courts in Alaska will be to the advantage of lawyers, litigants, and the general public. Inquiry has been made of the bench and bar in Alaska as to their wishes in this matter. More than 30 letters favoring the bill are on file with the Congress, and a number of the local bar associations of Alaska have passed resolutions favoring the bill. District Judges Folta of the first division, Dimond of the third division, and Pratt of the fourth division have all expressed their desire that the bill should be enacted, and the Delegate from Alaska, Hon. E. L. Bartlett, has appeared before this committee and strongly urged that the bill should receive favorable consideration. Under these circumstances, it seems highly desirable that the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure should be extended to the district court in Alaska as they have to the corresponding courts in Hawaii and Puerto Rico. COMMITTEE AMENDMENT Section 1 amends the organic act of the Territory. Inasmuch as title 28, United States Code, contains the authorization for the Supreme Court to promulgate rules, it is considered desirable to amend that title also. CHANGES IN EXISTING LAW In compliance with clause 2a of rule XIII of the House of Representatives, changes in existing law made by the bill are shown as follows (existing law proposed to be omitted is enclosed in black brackets, new matter is printed in italics, and existing law in which no change is proposed is shown in roman): 5a. That the rules heretofore or hereafter promulgated and made effective by the Supreme Court of the United States under authority of title 28, United States Code. section 2072, or under authority of any other statute, regulating the forms of process. writs, and motions, and the pleadings, practice, and procedure, in actions of a ciril nature in the district courts of the United States, and regulating appeals therefrom shall apply to the District Court for the Territory of Alaska and to appeals therefrom. COMMITTEE AMENDMENT SECTION 1871 OF TITLE 28, UNITED STATES CODE SECTION 2072. RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE FOR DISTRICT COURTS The Supreme Court shall have the power to prescribe, by general rules, the forms of process, writs, pleadings, and motions, and the practice and procedure of the district courts of the United States and of the District Court for the Territory of Alaska in civil actions. RELATING TO THE PAYMENT OF FEES, EXPENSES, AND COSTS OF JURORS JUNE 30, 1949.-Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union and ordered to be printed Mr. HOBBS, from the Committee on the Judiciary, submitted the following REPORT [To accompany S. 1042] The Committee on the Judiciary, to whom was referred the bill (S. 1042) relating to the payment of fees, expenses, and costs of jurors, having considered the same, report favorably thereon with amendment and recommend that the bill do pass. The amendment is as follows: Strike out section 2, page 2, line 2, and page 3, lines 1 and 2, which reads as follows: The Act entitled "An Act relating to the payment of fees, expenses, and costs of jurors", approved June 25, 1948 (ch. 652, 62 Stat. 1016), is hereby repealed. GENERAL STATEMENT The purpose of the bill is to provide moderate increases in the fees and subsistence and travel allowances for jurors and to make possible the more equal administration of the laws relating to jury fees. It will have the following effect upon existing law: (1) The per diem fee paid jurors for attendance at court will be increased to $7 per day. The present rate is $5 per day, established by the act of June 25, 1948 (ch. 652, 62 Stat. 1016) (now title 28, U. S. C. sec. 1871 as amended by sec. 97 of Public Law 72 of the present Congress, approved May 24, 1949). (2) The payment to jurors as reimbursement for the expense of their travel will be increased from 5 cents per mile to 7 cents per mile. (3) The maximum allowance of $2 per day, payable to jurors for the expense of travel other than at the beginning or end of a term of service and the alternative allowance of actual common carrier costs up to a maximum of $2 per day for such interim travel are eliminated from the present law so that for all necessary travel in connection with jury service, whether it be at the beginning or end of the term or at any time during the term and whether by common carrier, private automobile, or otherwise, will be at the rate of 7 cents per mile without maximum daily limitation. These changes in the method of compensating jurors for travel will conform with the changes recently made by Public Law 59 of the present Congress in reference to the reimbursement for travel of witnesses in the United States courts. (4) The subsistence allowances payable to jurors when they cannot return to their homes from day to day during their period of service will be increased to $5 per day. The present rate is $2 per day, established by the act of June 25, 1948 (ch. 652, 62 Stat. 1016) (now title 28, U. S. C. sec. 1871 as amended by sec. 97 of Public Law 72 of the present Congress, approved May 24, 1949). The $5 rate which will be allowed under the proposed legislation will be equal to that allowed witnesses in United States courts under Public Law 59 of the present Congress. The committee is convinced that the existing rates of jury allowances are clearly inadequate. The increases granted by the last Congress were not enough reasonably to compensate for the increased hotel costs, transportation charges, and food prices of the past few years. Indeed, the unreimbursed personal expenses of service on Federal juries have been so great that it is becoming increasingly difficult for the courts to obtain suitable jurors, truly representative of the community, without subjecting the citizenry to severe financial hardship. This situation has been found to be particularly acute for workers who earn their livelihood by the day and who must for that reason forego their regular earnings during the time while they are serving as jurors. It is essential that these people should be called for jury service if the jury system is to function properly. The bill also will remove from the law as it was enacted at the last Congress a differentiation of rates of payment for travel, that has caused administrative difficulty and unfairness to those jurors who must come from great distances to attend the courts. Under present law a maximum travel allowance of $2 per day is allowed for interim travel occurring between the time when the juror first reports for service and the time when he departs from the court to return to his home at the end of his tour of duty. On the other hand, the juror now receives full reimbursement, without maximum limitation, at 5 cents per mile for his initial trip to the courthouse and for his final trip to his home. Obviously, it costs the juror as much to travel between the courthouse and his home during his term of service as it does when he first reports or when he finally returns to his home and the limitation upon interim travel imposes a serious financial burden upon any juror, who, when he goes home at night must travel a greater distance than 20 miles. The committee is convinced that a jurer should not be "out of pocket" in connection with any of the travel, occasioned by his jury service, whether it be travel at commencement and end of the term of interim travel. If the jury system is to work as it is intended, it must be made possible for persons of limited means to perform their duties as jurors without heavy financial loss. The moderate increases in jury allowances that will be allowed under the proposed legislation will thus contribute to a greater efficiency in the administration of the courts. COMMITTEE AMENDMENT Section 2, which repeals the act of June 25, 1948, is unnecessary. That act has been repealed by a provision in Public Law No. 72, approved May 24, 1949. Attached hereto and made a part of this report is a letter from the Director of the Administrative Office of the United States Courts as well as a letter addressed to Senator McCarran by Chief Judge Harold M. Stephens of the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia, with respect to the need for this proposed legislation. ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES COURTS, Hon. EMANUEL CELLER, Chairman, Committee on the Judiciary, House of Representatives, Washington, D. C. DEAR CONGRESSMAN CELLER: I have your letter of April 29, 1949, requesting an expression of my views in reference to the bill, S. 1042, relating to the payment of fees, expenses, and costs of jurors, which is now pending before the Committee on the Judiciary of the House of Representatives, having passed the Senate on April 11, 1949. Although the Judicial Conference, under whose direction I act, has not taken formal action in reference to the bill, I feel confident that the members of the conference are in accord with its purposes, and I hope that the measure will be enacted by the Congress at the present session. For your information I enclose herewith a copy of a letter dated January 19, 1949, from Chief Judge Harold M. Stephens of the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia to Senator McCarran, which shows the origin of the pending measure, and indicates that many of the Federal judges who have considered the problem of jury compensation, including the members of the Judicial Conference and its Committee on Selection of Jurors, are of the view that the fees and expenses allowed jurors should be increased. The letter was printed in full in Senator McCarran's favorable report for the Senate Committee on the Judiciary on S. 1042 (S. Rept. No. 188, 81st Cong., Mar. 28, 1949). As the letter from Chief Judge Stephens shows, the pending bill was prepared for Senator McCarran and pursuant to his request by Judge Harry E. Watkins, of the nothern and southern districts of West Virginia, who is a member of the committee, authorized by the Judicial Conference to study the Federal jury system. It is specifically approved by the members of that committee, including Chief Judge John C. Knox, of the southern district of New York, its chairman, who has expressed to me his strong hope that the measure will become law in the near future. The bill will have the following effects upon existing law: "(1) The per diem fee paid jurors for their attendance will be increased from $5 per day (the amount fixed by the 80th Cong. in the act of June 25, 1948) to $7 per day. "(2) The rate of allowance per mile payable to reimburse jurors for the expense of their travel will be increased from 5 cents per mile to 7 cents per mile. "(3) The limitation of the present law fixed by the Eightieth Congress in the act of June 25, 1948, of a maximum of $2 per day allowable to reimburse a juror for the expenses of his travel incurred other than at the beginning and end of his term of service, together with the alternative allowance established under the present law, of actual common carrier costs up to $2 per day for such interim travel, will be eliminated; so that for all necessary travel, whether at the beginning or end of the term, or at any time during the term, and whether performed by common carrier, private automobile or otherwise, a juror will be compensated at the rate of 7 cents a mile without maximum daily limitation. These changes will make the method and amount of travel reimbursement for jurors conform with those provided by the Congress for witnesses in United States courts pursuant to the act passed by both the House and the Senate and approved by the President on May 10, 1949, as Public Law 59. "(4) The subsistence allowance for jurors who are unable to return to their homes from day to day during their period of jury service will be increased from $2 per day (the amount fixed by the Eightieth Congress in the act of June 25, 1948) to $5 per day, the same as is allowed to witnesses in United States courts under the act of May 10, 1949. "(5) The bill will also incorporate into revised title 28 of the code the structure of the act of June 25, 1948, with the rates as above indicated, and will eliminate from title 28 the obsolete and incorrect schedule of jury fees now contained in section 1871 of that title. Having done this. it will repeal as superseded. the act of June 25, 1948." The reasons for increasing existing rates of jury allowances are so clear that it seems hardly necessary for me to mention them. Increased hotel costs, transportation charges, and food prices have so affected the expense to the citizen of a period of Federal jury service, that many who would be well qualified and otherwise willing jurors are unable to bear the out-of-pocket loss that jury service entails. This is particularly true for workers and others who earn their ordinary living by the day, and who must forego their regular earnings for the time if they are to serve as jurors. Although Public Law 779, approved June 25, 1948, which provided a very modest increase in the jury attendance fee and allowed jurors $2 for interim subsistence or travel (see H. Rept. 2162 on H. R. 945, 80th Cong., 2d sess.. June 2, 1948) has been of some help, it has been found by experience that it does not go far enough. And the provision of the present law which limits travel reimbursement to a maximum of $2 per day when it is performed other than at the beginning or end of the term of service has caused serious difficulty and loss of money for jurors called to serve in geographically large districts where jury terms may last many months, and jurors are necessarily called from great dis tances, to return to their homes and then to be recalled from time to time during the term. In these cases, a $2 travel limitation upon their interim trips between their homes and the court during their period of service has been found to be grossly inadequate. As Judge Stephens points out in his letter to Senator MeCarran, "It seems only fair that jurors should not be out of pocket in respect to the expense of travel necessarily incurred in connection with jury service, whether it be travel at the commencement and end of the term or interim travel." The proposed bill would remedy this inequality, which has been a subject of grave concern to many judges and other court officials and of great difficulty to this office in its administration of the jurors' compensation act of June 25, 1948. In conclusion I may say that I am certain of the need for the enactment of the proposed bill, and think the Federal judiciary will be grateful if the Congress will give it prompt and favorable consideration. Please advise me if there is any further assistance I can give in reference to the matter. Sincerely yours, HENRY P. CHANDLER, Director. Hon. PAT MCCARRAN, UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS, United States Senator, Washington, D. C. MY DEAR SENATOR MCCARRAN: Mr. Robert B. Young, one of your assistants, telephoned me recently that you desired me to express my view as chief judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia circuit, and desired me also to obtain the views of a number of other United States judges, in respect of the question whether or not the fees and expenses allowed jurors by the provisions of Public Law 779, Eightieth Congress, second session, should be increased. I have accordingly consulted by telephone the following chief judges of the United States courts of appeals; Calvert Magruder, first circuit; Learned Hand,_second_circuit; John Biggs, Jr., third circuit; John J. Parker, fourth circuit; Joseph C. Hutcheson, fifth circuit; Xen Hicks, sixth circuit; J. Earl Major, seventh circuit; Archibald K. Gardner, eighth circuit; William Denman, ninth circuit; and Orie L. Phillips, tenth circuit. I have also talked with the following members of the Committee of the Judicial Conference of the United States on the operation of the jury system: John C. Knox, chief judge, United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, chairman; James M. Proctor, circuit judge. United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia circuit; Walter C. Lindley, chief judge, United States District Court for the Eastern District of Illinois; and Harry E. Watkins, district judge for the |