under new statutes with which the district attorneys have not either had time to become familiar, or time to make a specialty out of the situation which we have had. In other words, I have a man down there that goes out on Security Act violations. He has been very valuable to the district attorneys. For example, in Atlanta on Saturday will be argued a demurrer filed against an indictment charging about 16 or 17 defendants in the Kopald-Quinn case. This Kopald-Quinn case is probably the largest dragnet that the S. E. C. has thrown out, and we shall go to trial on that case, I think, some time in February. Mr. Bard, the chief of the trial section, is leaving for Atlanta to argue those demurrers at the request of the district attorney.

We do not move in on a district attorney unless we are asked to do so, but more and more frequently those requests are coming to us, and, of course, we are glad to render what assistance we can. Does that sufficiently answer the question?

Mr. CALDWELL. Yes. I gather that the Criminal Division has to do with the litigation of criminal cases altogether?

Mr. MCMAHON. Yes; litigation in the courts of criminal cases; that is right.

As I say, when I took over the division, I thought I saw a need for certain changes in the division. We have made those certain changes, and we have made them at no expense to the Government. We have divided the division into three sections, namely, the Administrative, Trial, and Appellate Sections. The Administrative Section takes care of day-by-day correspondence, cases which arise in the field, and on which a district attorney needs something done in Washington, such as where he has to get papers from the State Department. It also takes care of forwarding correspondence to the district attorneys, such as Agricultural Department matters, Treasury Department cases, etc.

The Trial Section is made up of those men whom we have to send out from time to time on important cases.

The Appellate Section takes care of writing briefs in collaboration with the district attorneys, both in the Circuit Court of Appeals and in the Supreme Court.

Now, it might be of interest to you to know that during the past year, out of 38 cases in which the defendants petitioned the United States Supreme Court for certiorari to review the decisions of various circuit courts of appeal, in which the Government filed briefs in opposition, the Supreme Court denied certiorari in 37 cases.

At the end of the fiscal year there were pending in the United States, 10 cases in which the defendants sought certiorari, and in which the Government will file briefs in opposition thereto. During the year 49 memoranda were prepared in the Criminal Division, and were addressed to the Solicitor General, recommending either for or against the petition for certiorari. When I say "memorandum," that does not mean just one sheet of paper. That means a complete brief on that subject, in order to convince the Solicitor General that our position is a correct one.

We have prepared five briefs on the merits in the Supreme Court, and members of the division have argued those cases in the Supreme Court. We have three of them up there now, criminal appeals. We disposed of one just yesterday.

I have endeavored during the past year to bring ourselves in closer touch with the district attorneys. I am glad to say that I think we have done so, that we have succeeded.

Let us look at the situation as it has existed. You gentlemen sat here this morning and listened to a presentation by Mr. Hoover of the splendid work of his division during the past year. However, the work of his division stops when the criminals are caught. We have to take care of them after that. It is up to us to carry out the second step in criminal cases, which is convicting them, and that often requires a great deal more labor than catching them, and you as lawyers and former judges know that.

NEED OF ADDITIONAL ATTORNEYS REQUESTED

Now, you have increased the appropriation of the Federal Bureau of Investigation and I think very properly so, but you have not, if I may say so, with all due deference, kept the Criminal Division apace, and I think that unless we have these attorneys that we are seeking that we will be unable to keep apace with the situation.

Mr. TARVER. How many attorneys have you now?

Mr. MCMAHON. I have 61.

Mr. TARVER. An increase of 14 is a very large increase at one time. Mr. MCMAHON. I have found it necessary to borrow seven attorneys from the War Risk Division section. I have been informed that I cannot have them any longer, that the War Risk Bureau wants them back. Now, I have either got to arrange to take care of paying them, or else I have got to send these seven men back, and I cannot do without them.

Let me develop this thought: Mr. Hoover said this morning that there were convicted on cases which had been made by the Federal Bureau of Investigation, that, is, investigated, 3,905, if I am not mistaken. I think I remember the figure correctly. As against that, our total convictions in the last fiscal year were 41,711. We are the bottle neck, and unless we function the investigative agencies do not function, and when I say "we", I also mean our very competent staff of district attorneys in the field with their assistants.

Mr. TARVER. I have no question whatever in regard to the great importance of your work and the necessity of having proper personnel to carry it on I was simply trying to develop your thought with reference to the necessity for this very large addition to your personnel of attorneys at this particular time, aggregating about a 25percent increase.

Mr. MCMAHON. That is right, but may I say that the real reason for that is this: During the years 1932, 1933, and 1934 increased activity occurred in the Bureau of Investigation. That is item no. 1. In addition to that the following investigative agencies have been coming into existence:

The W. P. A. investigating agency; the P. W. A. investigating agency; and the S. E. C. investigating agency, and all of these new agencies produce new cases.

Now, when I ask for $67,500 this year I am only trying to catch up with what was not done in those years when the thing was growing on us, because if you will look back at our appropriations you will find that the Criminal Division did not increase in anywhere near the same proportion that its work increased.

It is true that we are getting a very high record of convictions. When a lawyer gets down in the Criminal Division and is assigned to some work I look for results. I know that night after night those fellows are down at the library, they are working all hours, and I know they will have to continue, because even if I get these men, it does not mean they can do more work. It only means that they can do better work.

ATTORNEYS LEAVING SERVICE FOR PRIVATE PRACTICE

Mr. TARVER. Do you retain these lawyers permanently who are selected for service in the Department of Justice, or do they, as they develop unusual ability and aptitude for their work, leave the Government employ and enter private practice, and if so, to what extent? Mr. MCMAHON. I have been fairly fortunate during the past year. I lost one outstanding man by death. Three others have left, and soon a fourth will leave, and they are going to be hard to replace. Mr. TARVER. It is difficult for you to retain your best men?

Mr. MCMAHON. Not only that, but here is another thing: Every lawyer who wants to come with the Department has tried criminal cases, you see, in his home town. That has been part of his practice. So, he thinks he is qualified to try our cases. We have found out it just is not so. It is a peculiar and a particular type of criminal case that we try. Take the mail fraud cases, for example. To illustrate, or just to cite some of the important cases that we have tried out of the office this year, take the Detroit Bank cases that arose out of the collapse of the Detroit banks. We had a man out there for a year, Mr. Bard, now head of the Trial Section, and a fine attorney. He tried those cases and he brought two of the biggest of them to a successful conclusion along about last June.

Take, also, these so-called mortgage racket cases in New York, where guaranty and mortgage companies have been prosecuted for violating the postal laws. We have had some very fine successes up there. We have convicted the first two groups that we have tried-one of them in Brooklyn only about 4 weeks ago and substantial sentences were imposed. Then there was the case that was tried down in Puerto Rico, the Pedro Albizu Campos case, which, to my mind, is one of the most important victories we have had.

Mr. TARVER. What I had in mind particularly is whether or not you are able to keep in the employment of your division the men who show particular ability. Your attorneys go up against the very best attorneys in the country who are paid by their private employers very much greater compensation than the men receive who are acting under your authority. I wondered if the salaries in the higher brackets in your division were sufficiently high to enable you to retain in Government employment men of the same high type that you have to meet when you try these cases in the courts, the men who represent the defendants?

Mr. MCMAHON. The salaries are not high enough.

Mr. TARVER. What is the highest salary paid in your Division? Mr. MCMAHON. $10,000, a thousand dollars more than I receive myself as head of the division. That is on the special assistants roll. Mr. TARVER. Yes.

Mr. McMAHON. Now, let me give you an example in point. There is a young fellow down in my Division, one of the finest young lawyers I have ever known. The rumor came to me a few days ago that he had an offer to leave. I asked about it, and he verified it. He had an offer of $3,000 more to start with than we were paying him. I immediately recommended him for a raise. We were not able to give him $3,000 more than he had been getting, but we are keeping him. He is in love with his work here. It means a great deal to him. He is Chief of the Appellate Section, and he has done a great job.

ASSISTANCE TO DISTRICT ATTORNEYS IN THE FIELD

Mr. MCMILLAN. Mr. McMahon, as I understand your problem, the men you have to employ here in your Criminal Division have to almost literally be specialists in some particular line of criminal law? Mr. MCMAHON. Exactly.

Mr. MCMILLAN. And, in view of the complexities that now exist, and as a result of legislation that is being passed by Congress, that problem is becoming more and more acute?

Mr. MCMAHON. That is exactly right; yes, sir.

Mr. MCMILLAN. Let me ask you, if you can tell us, how many of the men in your division, on an average, are out in the field during the year?

Mr. MCMAHON. I should say there would be an average out at one time of about 12 trial men.

Mr. MCMILLAN. Once these men appear in a case as the result of the request of a district attorney, if an appeal is taken either by the Government or by the defendant, they are subsequently engaged in the preparation of the briefs, are they not? In other words, if a district attorney is not in position to try a case he is not in a position to prepare a brief in support of the Government's position?

Mr. MCMAHON. Yes; that is right. Now, we are very careful about that, Mr. McMillan, and I think we have been successful in keeping the closest and the most pleasant relations with the district attorneys. I am very proud of the fact that this relationship exists. We do not go in and say to a district attorney, "Here, we are going to try this case." We might, if it is a serious enough proposition, ask him to come in to Washington and talk it over with us.

Mr. CALDWELL. Have you noticed an increasing tendency on the part of district attorneys to rely upon your assistants?

Mr. MCMAHON. I can only answer that in this way, that the demands have increased and are increasing, but I attribute that to the fact that the number of criminal laws has increased, that is, the Federal jurisdiction, and also due to the fact that there are more criminal cases. In fact, the burden on the district attorneys today is twice what it was 10 years ago.

Mr. MCMILLAN. That was testified to yesterday by the Attorney General.

Mr. McMAHON. Exactly, and that is the reason we are getting more requests. We are happy to render the assistance they request of us. I think the closer we are tied in, the closer our cooperation, the better it is going to be for law enforcement in general.

DEVELOPMENT OF YOUNG TRIAL ATTORNEYS

During the past year I have tried to do this, too: We have taken in five or six young men who showed decided promise, two of whom were graduates of the Bureau of Investigation. By that, I mean they were with Mr. Hoover for some time. I am following the policy of sending one of those young fellows out with each one of the older attorneys on those cases. The result will be that within a couple of years I will have a trained staff of young lawyers who can, as they develop, take the more important cases themselves. I have always done this, and I hope to do more of it, if you will allow me this money. About last July we got in three of the crack assistant United States attorneys from around the country, based on their records. One of them was from Los Angeles. One was from San Antonio, and one was from the District of Columbia. They had been trained in trial work in the district attorneys' offices. We can trust those three fellows with just about any case we have. They are all about 35 years old. They know their work, and they have been hitting the ball. I would like to get some more of this type of trial lawyer.

REFERENCE DEPARTMENT

We have also set up a very fine reference department. We have worked out a system whereby we get important memoranda of law that are written in the different district attorneys' offices, and we, in turn, send to them memoranda of law, that are written by us. This material is all cataloged. It is going to be of inestimable value some day, and it is too bad it was not done 25 years ago. We need these men. We need them if we are going to do the job that we are supposed to do. Just think of it, 30,000 convictions with a staff of 61 men watching it. It has been tremendously difficult to try to properly follow up even the most important cases in the district attorneys' offices, you see, due to an insufficient amount of help.

TYPES OF CASES ON WHICH ATTORNEYS ASSIST IN THE FIELD

Mr. CALDWELL. Do you send these men out on special types of cases only, or generally when requested?

Mr. MCMAHON. We have been forced to turn down anything that did not justify a special assistant. In other words, we cannot accede to requests from a district attorney just because he is loaded up with work, and he would like to get some Dyer Act violations out of the way. The type of cases we have been handling are such as I have already indicated to you. Take, for example, the Stanley B. Young case in Louisville, Ky., where we have attained very fine results. That is a securities fraud case aggregating about 3 million dollars. Or, for instance, the slavery trial down in Arkansas, where we secured a conviction for the first time under the slavery statute. I myself went down on that case.

Then, I might speak of this: There is a tremendous amount of activity that goes on in the division which never does reach the courts. The outstanding example was the settlement by the Government with the Canadian liquor distilleries for $3,700,000 of their liability for getting liquor into this country during prohibition days. That represented