REPEAL OF OBSOLETE AND SUPERSEDED SECTIONS IN THE UNITED STATES CODE MARCH 4, 1930.-Referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be printed Mr. FITZGERALD, from the Committee on Revision of the Laws, submitted the following REPORT [To accompany H. R. 10198] The bill (H. R. 10198) to repeal obsolete statutes and to improve the United States Code was introduced by Mr. Fitzgerald and referred to the Committee on Revision of the Laws. The committee having considered the same, report favorably thereon with the recommendation that the bill do pass. The purpose of this bill is to repeal 98 obsolete statutes. It is the first of a proposed series of bills to improve and perfect the United States Code, and represents a step toward actual revision of the Federal statutes, the need for which is made more clearly manifest by the code and adoption of the system of cumulative codification. The committee plans to remove obsolete matter from the code and to commence a revision consisting of translation of the law into simple, clear, and precise language in an effort to attain an ideal of legislative expression. With the concomitant deletion of redundant provisions with which the body of the general and permanent statute law abounds, the size of the code will be materially reduced. The comments of the War, Navy, and Interior Departments upon the sections contained in this bill are set forth hereafter in parallel columns, together with those of the legislative reference service of the Library of Congress, each having made exhaustive research in connection with every section proposed for repeal. A verbatim quotation of each provision of the Revised Statutes and Statutes at Large referred to in the bill is appended to this report. All rights which have accrued on the date of approval and all liabilities which have been established at that time, remain unaffected. (FOR REPEAL) COMMENT OF DEPARTMENT COMMENT OF W. H. M'CLENON, TITLE FIVE R. S. 162 (U. S. C. Title 5, sec. 26) SECRETARY OF THE NAVY, Navy "This section is obsolete and might be completely repealed. It is the provision relating to hours of business in certain of the executive departments, including the Department of the Navy." SECRETARY OF WAR, War Department: This is a verbatim quotation from Section 162, R. S. From Congressional Record, Vol. 2, Part 4, 43 Congress, 1st Session, it appears that a section in a pending bill providing that the doors in each department should be kept open for public business, and the employees and other officers therein should be employed, not less than seven hours in each working day, was objected to and stricken from the bill by vote. The objection made against it was that it reduced the hours of work as prescribed in the statute which later became Section 162, R. S., though one member of Congress said that the latter section, dating from 1836, had always been construed simply to mean that the doors must be kept open 8 (and 10) hours per day. Under the latter view, Section 162, R. S., has not been expressly repealed, and the provisions in the Act of June 20, 1874 (18 Stat. 109, not repeated in the Code), requiring hours of labor not to exceed the time for which the departments were by law required to be open for business, seems to indicate that the office can be kept open for business MCCLENON: I concur in the suggestion that this section might well be repealed, on the ground that it is not actually operative at present. SECRETARY OF WAR, War Depart ment: for a longer time than the hours. of labor required of the employees therein. However, Section 162, R. S., is, in practical effect, inconsistent with Section 5 of the Act of March 3, 1893 (27 Stat. 715) as amended by Section 7 of the Act of March 15, 1898 (30 Stat. 316, 5 U. S. C. 29) which reads as follows: ** * Hereafter it shall be the duty of the heads of the several executive departments to require of all clerks and other employees not less than seven hours of labor each day, except Sundays and days declared public holidays by law or executive order. I therefore recommend the express repeal of Section 162, R. S. SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR, Department of the Interior: Title 5, Sec. 26-Relates to the hours of business in certain departments and including the General Land Office. The section is no longer operative and has been in effect superseded by later legislation requiring heads of departments to exact seven hours labor each work day. MCCLENON: R. S. 196 (U. S. C. Title 5, sec. 107) SECRETARY OF WAR, War Depart ment: This section reads as follows: The head of each department, except the Department of Justice, shall furnish to the public printer copies of the documents usually accompanying his annual report. This is quoted from Section 196, R. S. That section, however, contained the following adtional words: on or before the first day of November in each year, and a copy of his annual report on or before the third Monday of November in each year. MCCLENON: I concur substantially in the War Department's suggestion as to this section. Everything significant in the original provision having been superseded, I see no purpose in retaining on the statute books this almost self-evident proposition. after made for printing and binding shall not be used for any annual report or the accompanying documents unless the copy therefor is furnished to the printer in the following manner: Copies of the documents accompanying such annual reports on or before the fifteenth day of November of each year; complete revised proofs of the accompanying documents and the annual reports on tenth and twentieth days of November of each year respectively; * which provision is substantially copied in Title 5, Section 108 of the Code. Section 196, R. S., though not expressly repealed, appears to be useless particularly in the form in which it appears in the Code, and I therefore recommend its express repeal. MCCLENON: TITLE SEVEN 12 Stat. 505, sec. 6 (U. S. C. Title 7, sec. 306) SECRETARY OF WAR, War Department: Section 306 is evidently obsolete and may be properly left out of the Code as a temporary provi sion. Title 7. sec. 306,-grants made by this and other sections in aid of agricultural colleges may safely be said to have been completely adjusted and the sections serve no purpose. MCCLENON: Secs. 301-303, 306, 307, of Title 7, are essentially temporary provisions, and I do not think they have any present effect. TITLE TEN R. S. 1156 (U. S. C. Title 10, sec. 182) SECRETARY OF WAR, War Depart ment: This reads as follows: Appropriate officers to command the tactical units of engineer soldiers shall be detailed from the Corps of Engineers. This is apparently a reconstruction of Section 1156, R. S., which reads as follows: A battalion-adjutant, a battalionquartermaster, and appropriate officers to command the companies and battalion of engineer soldiers, shall be detailed from the Corps of Engineers. The foregoing appears to have been superseded by a proviso of Section 11 of the Act of June 3, 1916 (39 Stat. 174), as follows: That appropriate officers to command the regiments, battalions, and companies herein authorized and for duty with and as staff officers of such organizations shall be detailed from the Corps of Engineers, and shall not be in excess of the number in each grade enumerated in this section. Said Section 11 was in turn stricken out by Section 11 of the Act of June 4, 1920 (41 Stat. 768), and the following substituted: The Corps of Engineers shall consist of one Chief of Engineers with the rank of major-general, one assistant with the rank of brigadier-general, six hundred officers in grades from colonel to second lieutenant, inclusive, and twelve thousand enlisted men, such part of whom as the President may direct being formed into tactical units organized as he may prescribe. The last quoted section is now in force as modified by the Act of June 10, 1922 (42 Stat. 721, 723; see Title 10, Sections 8, 181, and 482; see also Section 1, Act of Sept. 14, 1922, 42 Stat. 840; 10 U. S. C. 481). I am unable to find any statute which restricts the number of enlisted men in the HR-71-2-VOL 245 MCCLENON: I concur substantially in the Department's view as to this section. The provision appears to be practically meaningless at present, in view of the provision contained in Sec. 181 of this Title. |