}

SENATE

71ST CONGRESS 2d Session

REPORT No. 680

DEPOSIT OF FEES AND EMOLUMENTS PAID TO UNITED STATES MARSHALS

MAY 19, 1930.-Ordered to be printed

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

REPORT

[To accompany H. R. 970]

The Committee on the Judiciary, having had under consideration the bill H. R. 970, relative to the deposit of fees and emoluments paid to United States marshals, reports the same to the Senate without amendment and recommends that the bill do pass.

The purpose and need of this legislation is shown in the following excerpt from the House report on this measure:

This bill is identical with the bill H. R. 9052, which passed the House in the Seventieth Congress, and its purpose and necessity is explained in the report accompanying H. R. 9052, which was made at that time by Mr. Hickey, of the Judiciary Committee, and which is as follows:

"The Committee on the Judiciary to whom was referred the bill H. R. 9052, after consideration, reports the same favorably with the recommendation that the bill do pass.

"This bill merely changes the law with reference to the deposit of fees and emoluments paid to United States marshals. The old procedure has been found cumbersome and the Comptroller General, as well as the Attorney General, recommend that it be abolished.

"The letter from the Attorney General recommending the enactment of this legislation and explaining the purpose of the bill is printed herewith and made a part of this report."

The CHAIRMAN OF THE COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY,

DECEMBER 5, 1927.

House of Representatives, Washington, D. C. MY DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: In a letter to me dated April 30, 1927, a copy of which is inclosed herewith, the Comptroller General suggests the desirability of legislation amending section 6 of the act of May 28, 1896 (ch. 252, 29 Stat. 179), so as to authorize and require United States marshals to deposit directly with the Treasurer of the United States, an assistant treasurer, or some public depositary of the United States, public moneys collected by them, instead of, as required

by said section 6, depositing such funds with the clerk of the court to be by the latter covered into the Treasury. The Comptroller General says:

"The procedure prescribed is cumbersome and does not appear in actual operation to give any effective check on the collections of the marshal, if such was the intention of the statute, and it is, therefore, believed that such collections should be deposited by the marshals in the same manner as other disbursing officers of the Government."

I am of the opinion that the proposed amendment is in the interest of better administration and have, therefore, caused to be prepared, and herewith transmit a copy of a bill to effectuate this purpose by amending section 6 of the act of 1896, effective July 1, 1928, so as to require all public funds coming into the hands of United States marshals to be deposited in accordance with the provisions of section 3621 of the Revised Statutes, as amended by section 5 of the said act of May 28, 1896; and I have the honor to request that you introduce this measure and endeavor to secure its enactment.

It will be noted that the Comptroller General's letter makes certain other recommendations for amendatory legislation affecting the accounts of United States marshals. I have written to you about these in a separate communication.

Respectfully,

Attorney General.

In order to substantially comply with the rule requiring amendments to show the changes made in the old law, there is printed herewith as a part of this report section 6 of the act of May 28, 1896, chapter 252, which is in part repealed by this act:

"SEC. 6. That on and after the first day of July, eighteen hundred and ninetysix, all fees and emoluments authorized by law to be paid to United States district attorneys and United States marshals shall be charged as heretofore, and shall be collected, as far as possible, and paid to the clerk of the court having jurisdiction, and by him covered into the Treasury of the United States; and said officers shall be paid for their official services, which, in the case of district attorneys, shall include services in the circuit courts of appeals of their respective circuits wherever sitting, salaries and compensation hereinafter provided and not otherwise: Provided, That this section shall not be construed to require or authorize fees to be charged against or collected from the United States, except as provided by sections eleven and thirteen of this act relating to field deputies and their payments."

O

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

REPORT

[To accompany H. R. 5258]

The Committee on the Judiciary, having had under consideration the bill (H. R. 5258) to repeal the provision of the Alaskan laws permitting any defendant to secure a separate trial, reports the same to the Senate without amendment and recommends that the bill do pass. An explanation of this legislation and reasons in support thereof are shown in the following excerpt from the House report on this measure: Section 144, Title II, of the act of March 3, 1899, chapter 429 (sec. 2253 of the Compiled Laws of Alaska), which it is proposed to repeal by this bill, is as follows:

"That when two or more defendants are jointly indicted for a felony, any defendant requiring it must be tried separately; but in other cases defendants jointly indicted may be tried separately or jointly, in the discretion of the court.'

With the repeal of this statute the general principles of the criminal law with reference to the right of defendants jointly indicted will apply to cases in Alaska. This will bring the practice in Alaska in harmony with that in our United States courts. (See Heike v. U. S., 227 U. S. 131, 144, and Raarup v. U. S., 23 Fed. (2d) 547, 548.)

The repeal suggested will do away with the delays, uncertainties, and expense involved in the present statute, and will not only bring about uniformity but will be in the interest of the general administration of justice.

The bill has the approval of the United States attorney for the first division of Alaska and of the Attorney General.

O

S R-71-2-VOL 2-34

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

REPORT

[To accompany H. R. 5259]

The Committee on the Judiciary, having had under consideration the bill (H. R. 5259) to amend section 939 of the Revised Statutes by removing the limit of the amount which may be paid for advertising the sale of vessels or other property condemned by law, reports the same to the Senate without amendment and recommends that the bill do pass.

The following excerpt from the House report on this measure shows the need for this legislation:

This bill was recommended for enactment by the Attorney General in a communication addressed to Hon. George S. Graham, chairman of the committee, on November 11, 1929. The only change made in the existing law is the elimination of the words "for which advertising, a sum not exceeding $5 shall be paid." With the repeal of this language the Attorney General has advised the committee that he is of the opinion that the provisions of section 1 of the act of June 20, 1878 (sec. 322, title 446, U. S. Code), providing that all advertising shall be paid for at a price not exceeding commercial rates, will apply.

The provision in the statute limiting the amount to be paid to $5 was put in the statute when it was originally enacted over 100 years ago. The Department of Justice points out that it is obviously impossible to secure the number of insertions now required under existing practices in the various States for the sum of $5.

In accordance with the rule, there is printed below a copy of the statute showing the language eliminated in brackets:

"SEC. 939. All vessels, goods, wares, or merchandise which shall be condemned by virtue of any law respecting the revenue from imports or tonnage, or the registering and recording or the enrolling and licensing of vessels, and for which bonds shall not have been given by the claimant, shall be sold by the marshal or other proper officer of the court in which condemnation shall be had, to the highest bidder, at public auction, by order of such court, and at such place as the court may appoint, giving at least fifteen days' notice (except in cases of perishable merchandise) in one or more of the public newspapers of the place where such sale shall be; or if no paper is published in such place, in one or more