Imagini ale paginilor

tion of the War Department. This department stated in a letter dated October 3, 1928, that

Relative to the use by the State Department of a part of Paitilla Point Military Reservation, the War Department has no objection to the proposed use by the State Department of the area referred to, nor has it any objection to the recession of that area to the Republic of Panama, provided the three following conditions are fulfilled:

1. The private title thereto remains in the Government of the United States.

2. The military authorities have free and unrestricted use of all roads in the area in question, either existing or to be constructed, that provide access to and from the Paitilla Point Military Reservation through this area to the main highway in Panaman territory.

3. Should the property ceded cease to be used by the State Department, it shall be ceded back to the United States and returned to the control of the War Department.

If this bill should be enacted by Congress, it is proposed to effect the contemplated modification by an exchange of notes which will contain the conditions proposed by the War Department. The suggested change in the existing boundary line, therefore, is for the purpose of effecting a technical transfer of jurisdiction. Land now within the Canal Zone and under the jurisdiction of the United States is by this bill placed within the boundary of the Republic of Panama. Upon the erection of a legation by the United States upon this land the jurisdiction thus secured by Panama is again yielded back to the United States in accordance with the practice of diplomatic immunity and exemption from local jurisdiction.



FEBRUARY 19, 1932.-Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the

state of the Union and ordered to be printed

Mr. MONTET, from the Committee on Military Affairs, submitted the



[To accompany H. R. 7788)

[ocr errors]

The Committee on Military Affairs, to which was referred the bill (H. R. 7788) authorizing the granting by the Secretary of War of a right of way to the Georgia State Highway Department, reports favorably thereon with the recommendation that it do pass.

The bill provides: That the Secretary of War be, and he is hereby, authorized to grant to the Highway Department of the State of Georgia a right of way for a public, hardsurfaced road through a part of the uninclosed portion of the Government property embraced in the national cemetery reservation at Andersonville, Georgia.

The Secretary of War recommends the passage of this bill, and his letter to the committee reads as follows:


Washington, February 2, 1932. Hon. PERCY E. QUIN, Chairman Committee on Military Affairs,

House of Representatives. DEAR MR. Quin: Careful consideration has been given to the bill (H. R. 7788) authorizing the granting by the Secretary of War of a right of way to the Georgia Highway Department through the Andersonville National Cemetery, which you transmitted to the War Department under date of January 19, 1932, with a request for a report in duplicate relative thereto.

Section 6 of the act of Congress approved July 5, 1884 (23 Stat. 104; U. S. C. 10:1348), authorizes the Secretary of War to grant rights of way for the extension of State, county, or territorial roads across military reservations or changing the location of any such roads as may already exist. A national cemetery has been held not to be a military reservation within the meaning of said act.

The necessary special legislation proposed by this bill will give the Secretary of War legal authority to grant the desired right of way.

The War Department has no objection to granting a right of way across the uninclosed portion of the Andersonville National Cemetery, and therefore favors the passage of the bill. Sincerely yours,


Secretary of War. In view of the fact that the national cemetery in question is not a military reservation, the Secretary of War is without authority to grant any right of way thereon. Your committee finds that a large portion of the property embraced in this cemetery is not actually used as a burial ground. The right of way sought by the State of Georgia for the building of a hard-surfaced road is through a portion of the cemetery grounds not actually used for burial purposes. The construction of this road will not involve the removal of any bodies buried in the cemetery.

The road to be constructed will be one of the main highways of the State of Georgia, and your committee feels that the construction of this road through a part of the unused portion of this cemetery will not only not impair the uses to which these grounds are dedicated but on the other hand, will provide modern road transportation for those desiring to visit the cemetery and hence will be an asset to the cemetery and not a detriment thereto.

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]



FEBRUARY 19, 1932.-Referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be printed

Mr. FERNANDEZ, from the Committee on Naval Affairs, submitted

the following


(To accompany H. R. 5352)

The Committee on Naval Affairs of the House of Representatives, to whom was referred the bill (H. R. 5352) to provide for the better administration of justice in the Navy, having had the same under consideration, report favorably thereon without amendment and recommend that the bill do pass.

The United States Army for many years has had a provision in the Articles of War accomplishing a purpose exactly similar to that contemplated by the proposed legislation. Such provision was expressly reenacted by the act of June 4, 1920, whereby the second article of war now provides that "All persons under sentence adjudged by courts-martial are “subject to military law.” The constitutionality of this provision has been upheld by the Supreme Court of the United States. (Kahn v. Anderson, 255 U, S. 1; Carter v. McClaughry, 183 U. S. 365.) In the Carter case the court said, “He (Carter) was a military prisoner, though he had ceased to be a soldier, and for offenses committed during his confinement he was liable to trial and punishment by court-martial under the rules and Articles of War. It is considered that similar authority is equally desirable for the Navy and that equally compelling reasons exist for its enactment.

The Navy Department has urged the passage of this bill on numerous occasions prior to the present. It was first introduced in the Sixty-fifth Congress in 1918. At that time no case had yet arisen wherein the absence of such authority was keenly felt. It was then introduced only in contemplation of the possibility that occasions for its application would arise in the future. Since that time the records of the Navy Department disclose that at least eight cases have arisen


« ÎnapoiContinuați »