APRIL 13, 1944.-Referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be printed Mr. Cox, from the Committee on Rules, submitted the following REPORT [To accompany H. Res. 498] The Committee on Rules, having had under consideration House Resolution 498, report the same to the House with the recommendation that the resolution do pass. О 78TH CONGRESS 2d Session } HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES { REPORT No. 1351 TERMS OF OFFICE OF THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY AND MARSHAL IN THE CANAL ZONE APRIL 13, 1944.-Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union and ordered to be printed Mr. BLAND, from the Committee on the Merchant Marine and Fisheries, submitted the following REPORT [To accompany H. R. 3646] The Committee on the Merchant Marine and Fisheries, to whom was referred the bill (H. R. 3646) to amend section 42 of title 7 of the Canal Zone Code, having considered the same, report favorably thereon without amendment and recommend that the bill do pass. PURPOSE OF THE BILL The purpose of the bill is to increase the term of office of the district attorney and the marshal for the Canal Zone from 4 to 8 years. Prior to 1938 the term of office of the district judge for the Canal Zone, as well as of the district attorney and the marshal, was 4 years. By act of March 26, 1938, the term of the district judge was increased to 8 years. This legislation proposes to increase the term of the district attorney and marshal, thereby creating a uniform term of 8 years for each of the three officers. The legislation affects but two positions on the Canal Zone-the United States district attorney and the United States marshal. The bill was referred to the Attorney General for a report and your committee was advised that it was the opinion of the Attorney General that the term of office of district judges, United States attorneys, and marshals in the Territories and insular possessions should generally be increased. Conditions in that respect prevailing in the continental United States differ from those in the outlying Territories and possessions. In the continental United States offices of this type are filled by members of the local communities, who after the expiration of their terms can resume their former status in their localities. On the other hand, corresponding offices in the Territories and insular H. Repts., 78-2, vol. 283 possessions must of necessity frequently be filled by persons selected from the continental United States in view of the lack of sufficient available material in the localities in question. After the expiration of their terms, such officials upon returning to their homes frequently had it difficult to reestablish themselves. The result is that many persons who otherwise would be available for service in the Canal Zone are at times reluctant to accept appointments of this kind. Your committee also referred the legislation to the Secretary of War and was advised that the jurisdiction of the United States District Court for the Canal Zone was transferred to the Department of Justice by Executive Order No. 6166, dated June 10, 1933, and as indicated in Executive Order No. 7676, July 26, 1937, this transfer included all personnel of the district court. Therefore, as indicated by the Secretary of War, the War Department was not advised as to the reasons advanced for the proposed legislation. Mr. Alexander Holtzoff, special assistant to the Attorney General, appeared before the committee and sustained the views expressed by the Attorney General in his formal report. Mr. Holtzoff said that there were two arguments for the legislation-one was the desirability of having a longer tenure of office of the United States marshal and United States attorney in the Territories and insular possessions generally, because the department frequently has to send men who do not come from the local community, and consequently there is a peculiar situation in the Canal Zone owing to the fact that it is very largely a military area. Another reason stated was similar to the reason for extending the term of the judge of the Canal Zone and that is it is necessary to have men acquainted with local laws of the Panamanian Republic and who by length of service with Panamanians are better qualified by experience and service to represent the Government. Mr. B. F. Burdick, Chief of Office of the Panama Canal, also appeared before the committee. The author and proponent of the bill, Congressman Kefauver, appeared in support of its adoption. Your committee add, also as a part of this report, a letter received by the chairman of this committee dated April 6, 1944, from W. C. Hushing, chairman, national legislative committee, American Federation of Labor. Mr. Hushing's letter dated April 6, 1944, the letter from the Attorney General dated February 17, 1944, and the letter from the Secretary of War dated February 5, 1944, follow. Hon. SCHUYLER O. BLAND, AMERICAN FEDERATION OF LABOR, Chairman, Merchant Marine and Fisheries Committee, United States House of Representatives, Washington, D. C. DEAR JUDGE: Your courtesy in permitting me to peruse the minutes of the executive session of your committee held March 29, 1944, on H. R. 3646, and your action in withholding a report on the bill until I submit comments, are deeply appreciated. The bill affects but two Federal positions on the Canal Zone-the United States district attorney whose salary is $6,500 per annum, and the United States marshal whose salary is $5,500 per annum-by making their terms 8 years instead of 4 years, in order that their terms will correspond with that of the Federal judge in the Panama Canal Zone District Court. All interested persons should understand that this proposal is not a matter involving politics as both the attorney and the marshal come within the purview of the Hatch Act and despite this are not under civil service. In other words, the incumbents of these two positions are "neither fish nor fowl,” being prohibited by the Hatch Act from participating in politics and at the same time having no protection under civil service. The Canal Zone is a Government reservation 47 miles long from ocean to ocean and 10 miles wide. The sessions of the Canal Zone district court are held alternately on the Pacific and Atlantic sides. As all the ships of the world traverse the Canal a large number of cases in admiralty law are handled, as well as cases in railroad, equity, criminal, etc., law. As the Canal Zone is a crossroads of the world, and as many diplomats and other Government officials from other countries, especially from South America, pass through the Canal Zone, the United States official family, being small, all act more or less in an ambassadorial capacity. Naturally this requires high-grade personnel. The old Spanish Code, applied when Spain held sovereignty over the Canal Zone, is still in effect, as are some laws enacted by Colombia, the Republic of Panama, the French while they occupied the Canal Zone, and the United States. The judge, district attorney, and marshal must be familiar with all these laws and with but a 4-year term by the time the incumbents familiarize themselves with the laws their terms expire. As I served several years in an official capacity for the United States Government on the Canal Zone I am quite familiar with conditions there and I know that the proposal carried in H. R. 3646 is not a new one. It was originated early in 1937 by Judge Thomas, of Bowling Green, Ky., whol declined reappointment as judge of the Panama Canal district court because he was financially independent and wished to enjoy the fruits of his labors during his declining years. After his retirement he came to Washington, visited Senator M. M. Logan, also from Kentucky, and in substance told him that as the inhabitants of the Canal Zone were made up of Army and Navy personnel, employees of the Panama Canal, Panama Railroad, Panama Railroad Steamship Line-all Government agenciesand a few employees of oil and cable companies serving the Canal Zone, that it was impractical to appoint officials of the zone from among them. Judge Thomas further stated that in appointing court officials, men of ability and standing should be chosen, and that it was unfair to expect such men to leave their homes and occupations in the United States for a 4-year term on the Canal Zone and upon their return to their homes in the States at the end of that time find themselves strangers, displaced in their occupations and businesses by others. Judge Thomas was no longer interested personally but he realized that a very bad situation existed and sought to have it corrected. He was a friend of long standing and always came to see me when in Washington. On this occasion he came to my office and suggested that, as he was leaving for his home in Kentucky, I follow up the matter. I agreed to do so. In the meanwhile Senator Logan had introduced a bill, S. 1986 (75th Cong.), but it only provided for increasing the term of the judge. I immediately contacted Senator Logan and pointed out to him that Judge Thomas had intended that the district attorney and the marshal should be included along with the judge, and he agreed with my viewpoint and suggested that I rewrite the bill. I advised him I thought this was unnecessary and that it would be best for me to propose amendments to the bill as introduced when the Senate Judiciary Committee held a hearing on it. Senator Logan agreed to this suggestion, and I thereupon notified the clerk of the Senate Judiciary Committee of my desire to testify and present amendments; but through an oversight he did not notify me and the bill was reported as introduced. I then wrote Senator Logan as follows: Hon. M. M. LOGAN, WASHINGTON, D. C., June 28, 1937. Senate Office Building, Washington, D. C. MY DEAR SENATOR: You will recall that I discussed with you S. 1986, a bill to increase the term of the judge of the Canal Zone court from 4 to 10 years. Due to a misunderstanding this bill was reported without my being given an opportunity to suggest an amendment, but it seems to me that such an amendment as I intend to propose could readily be offered from the floor, when the bill is considered for passage. You, as introducer of the bill, are, of course, fully advised as to the reasons why it is believed necessary to increase the term of the judge to 10 years. I desire to point out that the arguments in favor of increasing the judge's term, apply with equal force to the terms of the United States district attorney and the United States marshal on the Canal Zone. |