H.-ll

18

stenographers be employed, to which end the provision of an adequate compensation is indispensable; and second, that they be required to write out their notes in longhand as soon as possible. I am decidedly of the opinion that the general public interests, as well especially as economy in the expenses of the Courts, will be promoted by the enactment of a properly-framed law for the appointment of stenographers. I have, &c, W. McKennan, Circuit Judge, Third Circuit.

Sir, — Baltimore, Maryland, 12th January, 1880. So far as the convenience and, I might say, necessity of a shorthand reporter for the United States Courts is concerned, it is demonstrated by the fact that almost all the State Courts are provided with them. When you consider the time taken by counsel to take down the language of a witness, and remember that the United States is paying $>2 a day to forty-eight men who are serving as jurors, and to any number often who are witnesses, you can readily see that any means of shortening a trial would be an economy on the part of the Government. Besides, we ought to consider the greater accuracy of shorthand reports, and the facility offered by it in making exceptions to evidence, and the rulings of the Court certain and accurate. I am clearly of opinion that to have a shorthand reporter on one's circuit would save the Government money every year. I have, &c, Hugh L. Bond, Circuit Judge, Fourth Circuit.

Sir, — Baltimore, 23rd January, 1880. I have your esteemed favour of the 14th, with reference to the Bill for the appointment of stenographers for the United States Courts. I think there can be no doubt of the wisdom of such a provision. The use of shorthand reporting is getting to be an acknowledged necessity in all nisi prius Courts, and the time it saves in the trial of a cause, and the consequent lessening of the expense of the attendance of jurors, witnesses, &c, is very great, and has been found to amply justify the expense of the reporter. In the United States Circuit Courts, in which there are but few jury cases which do not involve considerable sums, and in which there is' no appeal where the amount involved is less than $5,000; and in the Admiralty, in which it is often of the utmost importance that the language of witnesses should be taken verbatim, and in which the whole testimony goes up to the Circuit Court on appeal, a stenographer is of peculiar importance, and, I have no question, would be a most valuable adjunct to the Court. It can hardly be expected that the first legislation on the subject will result in a perfect scheme ; but, if we once get a law providing for their appointment, it will be easy to amend anything which may be found from experience to need correction. I have, &c, Thos. J. Morris, District Judge, Maryland.

Sir, — Brooklyn, New York, 16th January, 1880. I have no hesitation in saying that it is, in my opinion, important that some provision be made which will enable the Circuit-and District Courts to avail themselves of the services of competent and responsible stenographers. The methods of conducting trials in the Courts of this State and other States have accustomed the Bar to the use of a stenographer, and I feel confident that most of the counsel that appear-before me would prefer to have a stenographer in every case conducted by them in the Courts of the United States. Indeed, the necessity compels the frequent employment of private stenographers, a course which, especially in Government cases, involves a risk, arising from the negligence, or it may be the wilful misconduct,-of a man selected by the parties for the particular case. This risk is considerable, and some day or other may involve serious consequences. I sincerely hope some proper Bill will be passed. I have, &c, Chas. L. Benedict, District Judge, New York.

SiE, — Charleston, South Carolina, 15th January, 1880. Yours at hand touching the expediency of appointing stenographers to the United States Courts. lam most earnestly in favour of such appointments, and it has been a matter of deep and constant regret with me that such provision had not been made from the commencement of my administration of the law in the United States Courts, dating with the restoration of the civil authority of the United States in this State. It is and has always been my painful conviction that the administration of the law, and its illustration and vindication before the people, has been crippled and greatly defective because of the lack of the provision which now engages the attention of Congress. It is my judgment, also, that such provision is necessary to the despatch of business, and would be a great economy in the saving of time, in securing full and accurate reports of testimony and the oral opinions delivered by the Court on the points made in the progress of a trial. In enforcement of the expediency of such help in the administration of justice in the United States Courts I would add, that such provision recently extended to all the Courts, in their several Circuits, in this State, and, though by subsequent legislation it has been limited to the Charleston Circuit, yet it has been stated to me by a highly-distinguished member of our Legislature that there is a cry from all over the State for the re-enactment of the old law and the full provision it made for all the circuits of the State. The consequence of this provision for the State Courts is, that the