Mr. WATERMAN, from the Committee on the Judiciary, submitted the following REPORT [To accompany S. 1916] The Committee on the Judiciary, having had under consideration the bill (S. 1916) to amend section 1025 of the Revised Statutes so as to permit the attendance of clerks or stenographers before grand juries during the taking of testimony, reports the same to the Senate without amendment and recommends that the bill do pass. The purpose of this legislation is simply to permit the presence of stenographers in grand jury rooms without the necessity of appointing such stenographers as special assistant United States attorneys. Under the existing rules and practice in certain districts, the presence of stenographers in grand jury rooms is prohibited except under appointments as indicated above. The attitude of the Department of Justice toward this legislation is indicated by the following paragraph from a letter from the Attorney General under date of November 14, 1928: The need for clerical assistance to prosecuting officers before the grand juries has been clearly demonstrated. At the same time, there is a conflict of legal decision as to the right, under existing law to permit stenographers in grand jury rooms, without invalidating the subsequent conviction of defendants. This conflict of opinion may be settled and much needed aid given Government prosecuting officers by the enactment of the proposed legislation, and I therefore venture to express the hope that the Senate Judiciary Committee will make an early and favorable report on the bill. This bill is identical with H. R. 9785, Seventieth Congress, which passed the House of Representatives on January 25, 1928. Following is a statement of the said section 1025 as proposed to be amended by this bill, such amendment being printed in italics: SEC. 1025. No indictment found and presented by a grand jury in any district or other court of the United States shall be deemed insufficient, nor shall the trial, judgment, or other proceeding thereon be affected by reason of any defect or imperfection in matter of form only, which shall not tend to the prejudice of the defendant, or by reason of the attendance before the grand jury during the taking of testimony of one or more clerks or stenographers employed in a clerical capacity to assist the district attorney or other counsel for the Government who shall, in that connection, be deemed to be persons acting for and on behalf of the United States in an official capacity and function. 71ST CONGRESS 2d Session } SENATE { REPORT No. 678 PROVIDING FOR PUNISHMENT OF ASSAULTS UPON LETTER OR MAIL CARRIERS MAY 19, 1930-Ordered to be printed Mr. WATERMAN, from the Committee on the Judiciary, submitted the following ADVERSE REPORT [To accompany S. 1933] The Committee on the Judiciary, having had under consideration the bill (S. 1933) providing for the punishment of assaults upon letter or mail carriers, reports the same adversely to the Senate and recommends that the bill do not pass. The committee is of the opinion that letter and mail carriers are sufficiently protected by the laws of the various States against assaults, and it is deemed neither necessary nor desirable to make such acts Federal offenses. Mr. WATERMAN, from the Committee on the Judiciary, submitted the following REPORT [To accompany S. 3068] The Committee on the Judiciary, having had under consideration the bill (S. 3068) to amend section 355 of the Revised Statutes by authorizing the Attorney General to accept certificates of title or policies of title insurance in the acquisition of land or any interest therein by the United States, reports the same to the Senate without amendment and recommends that the bill do pass. This measure proposes to reenact section 355 of the Revised Statutes as it now exists and to add thereto that portion of the bill contained in the proviso on page 2 of the bill. The following letter of January 18, 1930, from the Attorney General shows the purposes and need of this legislation: Hon. GEORGE W. NORRIS, JANUARY 18, 1930. United States Senate, Washington, D. C. DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN. You have had under consideration S. 3068 to amend section 355 of the Revised Statutes, which requires the opinion of the Attorney General upon the validity of titles of land purchased or condemned by the United States. The amendment is for the purpose of authorizing the Attorney General, in his discretion, to accept as a basis for his opinion upon the validity of the title a certificate of title or a policy of title insurance issued by a title or title-insurance company. I earnestly recommend the adoption of this amendment to the present law. There has been delay in the acquisition of sites for public buildings, particularly in the District of Columbia, after the sites are selected and the request for condemnation or examination of the title has come to this department from the Treasury Department. The large volume of purchases and condemnations resulting from the public-building program, the acquisition of lands for flood control, wild-life refuges, and other public purposes, has overtaxed the capacity of this department to examine and pass the titles under the prevailing system. I am making an effort to reorganize this branch of the work in this department so as to eliminate causes for delay. It is particularly desirable at this time that the public-building program should be expedited so as to stimulate business activity and furnish employment to those who need it. A number of causes have contributed to these delays. One of them is the result of the necessity under existing law to obtain complete abstracts of title of property to be purchased or condemned and to have them examined in this department. The existing law requiring the opinion of the Attorney General upon the validity of titles has been construed to require him in all cases to base his opinion on an abstract of title running back into the dim past. Some of these abstracts are voluminous and it takes abstract companies weeks and months to prepare and deliver them, and a long time is consumed in the examination of them. In the case of the site for the new Supreme Court Building, several months elapsed after the date the Treasury requested condemnation before we could obtain such an abstract of title. I have personally examined the files in a number of cases where long delays have occurred resulting from these causes. In some localities it is a common practice for private interests to rely on certificates of title or on policies of title insurance issued by reliable title insurance companies. Business men expend large sums in reliance on such titles. There are other localities where the practice is to rely on the examination of abstracts and where no dependable title insurance companies are available. It is not proposed that the present method should be generally changed, but only now and then where certificates or policies of reliable title insurance companies are available and great delay may be avoided by using them and the Attorney General is satisfied that the title insurance companies are dependable, and their methods careful and thorough, the authority asked should be exercised. Where property is being purchased the certificate or policy would be furnished by the vendor. Where the property is to be acquired by condemnation it is not proposed to expend the public moneys for premiums of insurance, but in such cases at small cost certificates of title obtained from reliable title insurance companies might be used as a basis for ascertaining the names of the necessary parties defendant so that condemnation proceedings may be instituted promptly after the request is made by the Treasury Department. The suggestion in opposition to this measure is that the Government may spend millions in the erection of buildings on some of this property and should not be satisfied with a mere guaranty or certificate of title by a title insurance company. That argument is plausible, but in my opinion it is unsound. A reputable title insurance company will not issue a certificate or policy without being itself satisfied as to the validity of the title. For that purpose it maintains careful records and employs competent title examiners. Where a certificate or policy is issued, it means that the title has been carefully and thoroughly examined by title examiners employed by the title insurance company. When a title is examined here in the department, it is examined by title examiners employed by the Attorney General. While our men are experienced and competent, we have no reason to believe that they are any more experienced, dependable, or competent than the examiners employed by substantial and careful title insurance companies. The result is that a title passed on the strength of a certificate or policy of title insurance has behind it as careful an examination of the title as we can make in the Department of Justice. The title insurance companies are able to save time because on each occasion when the title passes and they examine the title, they preserve the results of their examination, and on the next transfer they make only an inquiry for the period since their last examination. It must also be borne in mind that the Government is under less risk than are the private business interests which rely on such certificates and policies. The Government in possession is not subject to an ejectment suit, and it is also armed with the power of eminent domain to save any loss of buildings by a condemnation of any adverse interest that develops. I find that under date of March 28, 1928, my predecessor signed a letter on this subject, prepared by one of the title examiners here in the Department of Justice, advancing objections to a similar proposal. I have considerd all these objections, but can not agree that in all cases it is improper or unsafe for the Government to rely, as do private business interests, upon the work of careful and substantial title insurance companies. The file does not show that all of the considerations I have mentioned were brought to the attention of my predecessor, and I feel sure that if they had he would have agreed with me that under some conditions and with the exercise of proper care and judgment it would be proper to follow the practice authorized by the proposed bill. Respectfully yours, |