Imagini ale paginilor
PDF
ePub
[blocks in formation]

Mr. HEBERT, from the Committee on the Judiciary, submitted the

following

REPORT

[To accompany S. 1985)

The Committee on the Judiciary, having had under consideration the bill (S. 1985) providing against misuse of official badges, reports the same to the Senate and recommends that the bill do pass with the following maendment:

At the end of the bill, add the following section:

SEC. 2. Any person who offends against the provisions of this act shall, on conviction, be punsihed by a fine not exceeding $250 or by imprisonment for not exceeding six months, or by both such fine and imprisonment.

This amendment is proposed in order to correct the inadvertent omission of the penalty clause from the bill when introduced. Amended in this manner, the bill is identical with the measure as it passed the Senate on February 21, 1929.

The need for this legislation is indicated by the following language contained in a letter from the Department of Justice under date of December 2, 1927:

It has come to the notice of the department that it is possible for any unauthorized person to procure from certain merchants or manufacturers badges similar to or identical with those prescribed for the use of deputy United States marshals. It may be that other prescribed badges, such as those designed for the use of special agents of the Bureau of Investigation of this department and those which it may be found desirable to prescribe for the use of penitentiary guards and probation officers, can be procured now or in the future with equal facility by unauthorized persons. It is obvious that the possession of such insignia of official status by unauthorized persons may easily result in gross imposition upon the public.

O

[blocks in formation]

Mr. HEBERT, from the Committee on the Judiciary, submitted the

following

REPORT

[To accompany H. R. 977)

The Committee on the Judiciary, having had under consideration the bill (H. R. 977) to establish under the jurisdiction of the Department of Justice a division of the Bureau of Investigation to be known as the division of identification and information, reports the same to the Senate without amendment and recommends that the bill do pass.

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

This bill was favorably reported by the committee in the last Congress on the recommendation of the Attorney General and passed the House on February 25, 1929, a few days before the final adjournment of Congress.

There is printed herewith and made a part of this report a report made on the previous bill, which is as follows:

(House Report No. 2431, Seventieth Congress, second session] The Committee on the Judiciary, to whom was referred the bill H. R. 11802, after consideration, reports the same favorably and recommends that the same

There is printed herewith and made a part of this report a communication from the Attorney General which sets forth the necessity for this legislation. As will be seen from the report of the Attorney General,

this bill does not provide any additional work or expense on behalf of the Government and only seeks to give legislative authority for the work that is being carried on by the division of identification in the Department of Justice.

do pass.

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE,

Washington, D. C., April 2, 1928. Hon. GEORGE S. GRAHAM, Chairman Committee on the Judiciary,

House of Representatives, Washington, D. C. MY DEAR MR. Chairman: Responsive to a request from your committee, by telephone, concerning H. R. 11802, a bill establishing under the jurisdiction of the Department of Justice a division of the Bureau of Investigation to be known as the division of identification and information, I have the honor to advise that the identification division is in existence and operation, but that there is no legislative authority for it other than that which appears in the appropriation bill and it is desired, for this reason, that H. R. 11802 be enacted. Respectfully,

JNO. G. SARGENT, Attorney Generai. In his annual report to the Congress, Attorney General William D. Mitchell has again urged that this legislation be enacted. The legislation in its amended form is also urged by the International Association of Chiefs of Police.

[ocr errors]

}

716T CONGRESS

2d Session

SENATE

{

REPORT No. 691

LIMITING THE JURISDICTION OF DISTRICT COURTS

OF THE UNITED STATES

MAY 20, 1930.-Ordered to be printed

Mr. NORRIS, from the Committee on the Judiciary, submitted the

following

REPORT

[To accompany S. 4357]

The Committee on the Judiciary, to which was referred the bill (S. 4357) to limit the jurisdiction of district courts of the United States, having had the same under consideration, recommends the passage of the bill.

.

OBJECT OF PROPOSED LEGISLATION

The object of this bill is to take away from Federal district judges the jurisdiction which the law now gives them on account of diversity of citizenship. This jurisdiction is given them in paragraph 1, section 24, of the Judicial Code as amended (sec. 41 of the United States Code annotated). The first paragraph of this section reads as follows:

First. Of all suits of a civil nature, at common law or in equity, brought by the United States, or by any officer thereof authorized by law to sue, or between citizens of the same State claiming lands under grants from different States; or, where the matter in controversy exceeds, exclusive of intere stand costs, the sum or value of $3,000, and (a) arises under the Constitution or laws of the United States, or treaties made, or which shall be made, under their authority, or (b) is between citizens of different States, or (c) is between citizens of a State and foreign States, citizens, or subjects. No district court shall have cognizance of any suit (except upon foreign bills of exchange) to recover upon any promissory note or other chose in action in favor of any assignee, or of any subsequent holder if such instrument be payable to bearer and be not made by any corporation, unless such suit might have been prosecuted in such court to recover upon said note or other chose in action if no assignment had been made. The foregoing provision as to the sum or value of the matter in controversy shall not be construed to apply to any of the cases mentioned in the succeeding paragraphs of this section.

« ÎnapoiContinuați »