MARCH 8, 1948.-Committed to the Committee of the Whole House and ordered to be printed Mr. FELLOWS, from the Committee on the Judiciary, submitted the following REPORT [To accompany H. R. 2418] The Committee on the Judiciary, to whom was referred the bill (H. R. 2418) for the relief of Luz Martin, having considered the same, report favorably thereon with amendment and recommend that the bill, as amended, do pass. The amendment is as follows: On line 6, after "1945" strike out the period and add the following: at the port of Norfolk, Virginia. Upon the enactment of this Act the Secretary of State shall instruct the proper quota-control officer to deduct one number from the quota for the Philippine Islands for the year then current. PURPOSE OF THE BILL The purpose of the bill is to grant permanent residence to a 16-yearold girl, Luz Martin, a native and citizen of the Philippine Islands. The amendment provides for the usual quota deduction. GENERAL INFORMATION The pertinent facts in this case are set forth in a letter from the Assistant to the Attorney General, dated January 19, 1948, to the chairman of the committee, which letter reads as follows: Hon. EARL C. MICHENER, Chairman, Committee on the Judiciary, JANUARY 19, 1948. House of Representatives, Washington, D. C. MY DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: This is in response to your request for the views of this Department relative to the bill (H. R. 2418) "for the relief of Luz Martin." The bill would authorize the Attorney General to record the lawful admission for permanent residence of Luz Martin as of June 21, 1945. The files of the Immigration and Naturalization Service of this Department disclose that the alien is a native and citizen of the Philippine Islands, having been born there on October 15, 1931. She entered the United States on June 21, 1945, at Norfolk, Va., as a visitor under section 3 (2) of the Immigration Act of 1924. She is unable to adjust her immigration status in the United States as the quota to which she is chargeable has been oversubscribed for a number of years to come. The files further show that Luz Martin arrived in the United States with her guardian who was an evacuee from the Philippines and is a United States citizen. The guardian has stated that the child, at great risk of her life and safety, brought food and other small comforts to her and other Americans who were interned in the Philippines. She further stated that the child has no living relatives in the Philippines and that she intends to adopt her. The alien is at present attending school in New York City where she resides with her guardian who supports her. Several persons have stated that the alien is a person of good moral character and is intensely loyal to the United States. Whether the bill should be enacted presents a question of legislative policy concerning which the Department of Justice prefers to make no suggestions. Attention is invited to the absence in the bill of the customary provision relating to the proper quota deduction to be made in the event the bill is enacted. Sincerely yours, PEYTON FORD, The Assistant to the Attorney General. Mr. Bloom, the author of the bill, submitted to the Subcommittee on Immigration and Naturalization a memorandum containing additional information, which memorandum is quoted below in parts: Luz Martin was born * * in Samar, Philippines. During the siege of Manila, in 1945, her parents were killed, and she was wounded and left alone in the hospital, where she was placed by American troops, who rescued her from the Japanese. Mrs. Cecelia Mitchell Martin, an American citizen, who resided in Manila for many years before the war, knew Luz Martin and her family very well, and was at that time in the Santa Tomas Internment Camp, where she had spent three and a half years. * * * * * During this time, prior to her own injury, Luz Martin appeared faithfully at the gates of the * * * camp with foodstuffs. After her injury it was arranged to bring the child into the camp to be sheltered and fed by Mrs. Martin and to receive medical care. Later, special permission was given to Mrs. Martin to bring the child into the United States. Based on the special permission from the State Department, which waived the passport and other requirements for entry, the immigration authorities admitted Luz Martin into the United States on a temporary basis, * * * on June 21, 1945, * * * However, she has no chance of legalizing her entry, since no documents from the Philippine Islands are available, and since the quota is oversubscribed for many years to come. Luz Martin is being housed and fed by Mrs. Cecelia Mitchell Martin, who provides for all of her necessities, including schooling. She now attends the New York Business School in the daytime, taking a complete secretarial and business course. The only way to have Luz Martin's entry legalized, and make her eligible for citizenship, is by act of Congress. I believe that the above facts merit such action, for the heroic deeds performed, and that she will be a valuable citizen of the United States as proven during the Japanese occupation of Manila by her loyalty and sacrifice in helping the internees and American soldiers. * * 80TH CONGRESS HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 2d Session REPORT No. 1523 EXTENSION OF ADMIRALTY JURISDICTION MARCH 8, 1948.-Referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be printed Mr. FOOTE, from the Committee on the Judiciary, submitted the following REPORT [To accompany H. R. 238] The Committee on the Judiciary, to whom was referred the bill (H. R. 238) for the extension of admiralty jurisdiction, having considered the same, report favorably thereon with an amendment and recommend that the bill do pass. The amendment is as follows: Page 1, line 11, change the period at the end of the line to a comma and add the following proviso: Provided, That as to any suit against the United States for damage or injury done or consummated on land by a vessel on navigable waters, the Public Vessels Act or Suits in Admiralty Act, as appropriate, shall constitute the exclusive remedy for all causes of action arising after the date of the passage of this Act and for all causes of action where suit has not been hitherto filed under the Federal Tort Claims Act: Provided further, That no suit shall be filed against the United States until there shall have expired a period of six months after the claim has been presented in writing to the Federal agency owning or operating the vessel causing the injury or damage. PURPOSE OF THE BILL Under existing law, admiralty and maritime jurisdiction in respect of claims arising out of maritime torts is extended by the United States courts to only those cases where injury is done upon navigable waters, and not to those where injury is done to persons or property situated upon land, even though the injury is caused by a vessel situated on navigable waters. For example, if a bridge or pier, or any person or property situated thereon, is injured by a vessel, the admiralty courts of the United States do not entertain the claim for the damages thus caused. Cleveland Terminal & Valley R. R. Co. v. Cleveland S. S. Co. (208 U. S. 316); The Troy (208 U. S. 321) Martin v. West (222 U. S. 191). The bill under consideration would provide for the exercise of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction in all cases of the type above indicated. H. Repts,, 80-2, vol. 2—————7 As a result of the denial of admiralty jurisdiction in cases where injury is done on land, when a vessel collides with a bridge through mutual fault and both are damaged, under existing law the owner of the bridge, being denied a remedy in admiralty, is barred by contributory negligence from any recovery in an action at law. But the owner of the vessel may by a suit in admiralty recover half damages from the bridge, contributory negligence operating merely to reduce the recovery. Further, where a collision between a vessel and a land structure is caused by the fault of a compulsory pilot, the owner of the land structure is without remedy for his injuries since at law a compulsory pilot is not deemed the servant of the vessel's master or owner. Homer Ramsdell Transportation Co. v. Compagnie Generale Transatlantique (182 U. S. 406, 416). But if the vessel sheers off the land structure to collide with another vessel in the vicinity, the owner of the second vessel, by an in rem proceeding in admiralty, may recover full damages, for the wrong is viewed as that of the vessel itself and compulsory pilotage is no defense. The China (74 U. S. 53, 68). The bill under consideration would correct these inequities as a result of providing that the admiralty courts shall take cognizance of all of them. The bill will bring United States practice respecting maritime torts into accord with that followed by the British, who by a series of statutes, beginning in 1840, have restored admiralty jurisdiction in situations of this character and brought the British law into harmony with that of most European countries. For a number of years the American Bar Association and the Maritime Law Association of the United States have pressed for legislation of this character. Bills similar to H. R. 238 have been introduced in each Congress since the Seventh-fifth. Such bills have heretofore been approved in principle by the Maritime Commission, War Shipping Administration, and the Navy Department but not by this Department. Congress has failed on several occasions to pass legislation of this kind. For example, it was thought undesirable, while the United States was at war and operating many vessels, both through the War Shipping Administration and in the military and naval service, to impose additional liabilities on the United States for injuries caused by its vessels. Courts have held jurisdiction under the Public Vessels Act, 1925, to be confined to cases where a private admiralty proceeding could be maintained. State of Maine v. United States (45 F. Supp. 35, affirmed 134 F. 2d 574, cert. denied 319 U. S. 772). Since the act (46 U. S. Code 781) covers, without exception, all "damages caused by a public vessel" a contrary result appears justified by its plain language as well as its purpose (see. 66 Congressional Record, 3560) and the construction given the similar language of the British statutes. See especially The Ukla (19 L. T. R. (n. s.) 89, 90). But the Department formerly thought it wise to oppose alteration of the rule. Now that the Tort Claims Act, 1946, has been enacted, however, jurisdiction of any claims for injuries excluded by interpretation from the Public Vessels Act will clearly fall within the Tort Claims Act. Moreover, in peacetime Government vessels are seldom in charge of a compulsory pilot. It therefore seems unlikely that the bill can materially increase the liability of the United States for injuries caused by its vessels. On the other hand, so far as regards the right of the United States to recover for injuries done to Government-owned sub |