Hon. ALBEN W. BARKLEY,

President of the United States Senate.

FEBRUARY 14, 1949.

MY DEAR MR. PRESIDENT: I am submitting herewith, for consideration by the Congress, legislation to amend section 1705 of title 18 of the United States Code.

Section 1705 of title 18 of the United States Code is a penal statute relating to the destruction of letter boxes or mail. It is a revision of the law embodied in section 321 of title 18 of the United States Code (Criminal Code, sec. 198, amended), which provided as follows:

"Whoever shall willfully or maliciously injure, tear down, or destroy any letter box or other receptacle intended or used for the receipt or delivery of mail on any mail route, or shall break open the same, or shall willfully or maliciously injure, deface, or destroy any mail deposited therein, or shall willfully take or steal such mail from or out of such letter box or other receptacle; or shall willfully aid or assist in any of the afore-mentioned offenses, shall for every such offense be punished by a fine of not more than $1,000 or by imprisonment for not more than three years."

As revised in section 1705 of title 18, United States Code, by Public Law 772, approved June 25, 1948, the law provides:

"Whoever, having charge or control of any conveyance destroys any letter box or other receptacle intended or used for the receipt or delivery of mail on any mail route, or breaks open the same, or willfully or maliciously injures, defaces, or destroys any mail deposited therein, shall be fined not more than $1,000 or imprisoned not more than three years.'

The law, as codified in section 1705 of title 18, United States Code, is so phrased that its application is limited to persons "having charge or control of any conveyance." As a result of this limitation, a person who, on October 13, 1948, maliciously injured a rural mail box at Madison, Conn., could not be prosecuted under this law "because there was no conveyance used nor was any of the mail destroyed." It was necessary to request the chief of police of Madison to take prosecutive action under the State laws. A copy of the report of the inspectors who investigated the case is herewith.

It is believed that the Congress did not intend to limit the application of the law in section 1705 of title 18, United States Code, to persons "having charge or control of any conveyance.' Accordingly, this Department strongly urges the enactment of the legislation submitted herewith, which, it is believed, will accomplish the purpose desirca.

This Department has been advised by the Bureau of the Budget that there would be no objection to the presentation of this proposal for the consideration of the Congress.

81ST CONGRESS 1st Session

1

SENATE

{

REPORT No. 134

CERTAIN CASES IN WHICH THE ATTORNEY GENERAL HAD SUSPENDED DEPORTATION

MARCH 21 (legislative day, MARCH 18), 1949.-Ordered to be printed

Mr. MCCARRAN, from the Committee on the Judiciary, submitted the following

REPORT

[To accompany S. Con. Res. 23]

The Committee on the Judiciary, to whom were referred certain cases in which the Attorney General had suspended deportation for more than 6 months, having considered the same, report favorably on certain of said cases and recommend that Senate Concurrent Resolution 23 with reference to certain of said cases do pass.

PURPOSE OF THE CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

The purpose of the concurrent resolution is to record congressional approval, in accordance with Public Law 863 of the Eightieth Congress of suspension of deportation in certain cases in which the Attorney General has suspended deportation for more than 6 months.

STATEMENT OF FACTS

Since 1940 and prior to July 1, 1948, the law provided in substance that the Attorney General may suspend deportation of certain aliens if he finds that such deportation would result in serious economic detrimert to a citizen of the United States or legally resident alien, who is the spouse, parent, or minor child of such deportable aliens. Under the then existing law such deportation was subject to review by the Congress; but, if within a designated period of time the Congress did not pass a concurrent resolution stating in substance that the Congress does not favor the suspension of deportation, the suspension was final and the status of the alien involved was adjusted to that of a permanent resident.

SUSPENDED DEPORTATION CASES

Public Law 863 of the Eightieth Congress (approved July 1, 1948) enlarged the classes of deportable aliens who were eligible for suspension of deportation but required affirmative congressional approval in each case before the suspension of deportation could become final and the status of the alien could be adjusted to that of a permanent resident.

It is the view of the Immigration and Naturalization Service that all cases which were pending before the Congress during the second session of the Eightieth Congress should be handled under the procedure prescribed in Public Law 863 of the Eightieth Congress.

Included in the concurrent resolution are (a) 258 cases out of 292 cases which were referred to the Congress on January 15, 1948, and (b) 2 cases which were referred to the Congress on February 15, 1949. Thirty-four out of the 292 cases which were referred to the Congress on January 15, 1948, are currently being held for further study and investigation.

In each case which is recommended for approval a careful check has been made to determine whether or not the alien (a) has met the requirements of the law, (b) is of good moral character, and (c) is possessed of strong equities which would warrant the suspension of deportation.

The committee, after consideration of all the facts in each case referred to in the concurrent resolution, find that the concurrent resolution should be enacted and it accordingly so recommend its enactment.

O

81ST CONGRESS

1st Session

SENATE

{

REPORT No. 135

AMENDING TITLE 28 OF THE UNITED STATES CODE TO PROVIDE ADDITIONAL TIME FOR BRINGING SUIT AGAINST THE UNITED STATES IN THE CASE OF CERTAIN TORT CLAIMS

MARCH 21 (legislative day, March 18), 1949.-Ordered to be printed

Mr. MCCARRAN, from the Committee on the Judiciary, submitted the following

REPORT

[To accompany S. 1030]

The Committee on the Judiciary, to whom was referred the bill (S. 1030) to amend the Federal Tort Claims Act to increase the time within which claims under such act may be presented to Federal agencies or prosecuted in the United States district courts, having considered the same, report favorably thereon with amendments and recommend that the bill as amended do pass.

AMENDMENTS

Strike all after the enacting clause and insert in lieu thereof an amendment in the nature of a substitute:

That the first sentence of section 2401 (b) of title 28 of the United States Code is hereby amended to read as follows: "A tor: claim against the United States shall be forever barred unless action is begun thereon within two years after such claim accrues or within one year after the date of enactment of this amendatory sentence, whichever is later, or unless, if it is a claim not exceeding $1,000, it is presented in writing to the appropriate Federal agency within two years after such claim accrues or within one year after the date of enactment of this amendatory sentence, whichever is later.'

SEC. 2. (a) Section 1346 (b) of title 28 of the United States Code is hereby amended to read as follows:

"(b) Subject to the provisions of chapter 171 of this title, the district courts, together with the District Court for the Territory of Alaska, the United States District Court for the District of the Canal Zone and the District Court of the Virgin Islands, shall have exclusive jurisdiction of civil actions on claims against the United States, for money damages, accruing on and after January 1, 1945, for injury or loss of property, or personal injury or death caused by the negligent or wrongful act or omission of any employee of the Government while acting within the scope of his office or employment, under circumstances where the United States, if a private person, would be liable to the claimant in accordance with the law of the place where the act or omission occurred."

(b) The first paragraph of section 2672 of title 28 of the United States Code is hereby amended to read as follows:

"The head of each Federal agency, or his designee for the purpose, acting on behalf of the United States, may consider, ascertain, adjust, determine, and settle any claim for money damages of $1,000 or less against the United States accruing on and after January 1, 1945, for injury or loss of property or personal injury or death caused by the negligent or wrongful act or omission of any employee of the Government while acting within the scope of his office or employment, under circumstances where the United States, if a private person, would be liable to the claimant in accordance with the law of the place where the act or omission occurred."

Amend the title to read:

A bill to amend title 28 of the United States Code to provide additional time for bringing suit against the United States in the case of certain tort claims, and for other purposes.

PURPOSE OF AMENDMENTS

The purpose of the first amendment is purely technical in that it amends the appropriate sections of title 28 of the United States Code rather than section 420 of the Federal Tort Claims Act. No change in substance is accomplished.

The second amendment speaks for itself. It amends the title to conform with the first amendment.

STATEMENT

Section 420 of the Federal Tort Claims Act provides that cognizable claims against the United States shall be barred unless within 1 year from accrual of the claim, or by August 2, 1947, whichever is later, the claim is filed with an appropriate Federal agency or suit is filed in a Federal court. Since the August 2, 1947, limitation has already expired, we need treat only of the 1-year limitation.

The reported bill would enlarge the period for filing to 2 years from the date of accrual of the cause of action, or 1 year from the effective date of the amendatory act, whichever occurs later. The bill would, therefore, revive all those otherwise expired claims accruing on or after January 1, 1945, which (1) have not been determined adversely by a Federal agency or a Federal court, or (2) have been rejected by a Federal agency or a Federal court solely because of the statutory bar. It is not possible to estimate the number of claims which would be thus revived, but it is not believed to be large. It is not intended that the bill should revive those causes of action which have already been adversely determined by Federal agencies or courts on ground other than the running of the statute of limitations. It is felt that those few instances where the bill would favor claimants who have been sleeping on their rights would reach the vanishing point 1 year after enactment of the act. Thereafter the proposed 2-year period would become operative exclusively.

The 1-year existing period is unfair to some claimants who suffered injuries which did not fully develop until after the expiration of the period for making claim. Moreover, the wide area of operations of the Federal agencies, particularly the armed service agencies, would increase the possibility that notice of the wrongful death of a deceased to his next of kin would be so long delayed in going through channels of communication that the notice would arrive at a time when the running of the statute had already barred the institution of a claim or suit.

It is not the intention of the Federal Government to deprive tort claimants to their day in court or of their remedies. Nor, on the other hand, does it propose to encourage delay in the enforcement of a claimant's rights or to harass the Federal agencies in their defense against such suits by increasing the difficulty of their procurement of evidence. However, it is not believed that the enlargement of the existing period of limitations to 2 years as proposed in the reported bill will unnecessarily vex the agencies concerned, nor will it foster a lack of diligence on the part of claimants in the prosecution of their claims. The period of 2 years proposed in the bill represents a happy