2d Session No. 561 PREVENT DESECRATION OF THE FLAG AND INSIGNIA OF THE UNITED STATES JANUARY 29, 1930.-Referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be printed Mr. GRAHAM, from the Committee on the Judiciary, submitted the following REPORT [To accompany H. R. 742] The Committee on the Judiciary, to whom was referred the bill H. R. 742, after consideration, reports the same favorably and recommends that the bill do pass. Full hearings (Serial 4) were had on this legislation in the Seventieth Congress and the identical bill was favorably reported by this committee and passed the House in that Congress. There is printed herewith an extract from the report made in that Congress which sets forth the necessity and purposes of this legislation: At the present time 46 States have enacted legislation for the protection of the flag of the United States, but it is thought that, as the flag is the emblem of the United States, it should be protected by Federal legislation. The flag was adopted by an act of Congress (3 Stats. p. 415) and it should likewise be protected by an act of Congress. It is the emblem of national sovereignty, and it is therefore the duty of the Federal Government to guard and protect it against desecration. The following opinion of the Attorney General of May 25, 1925, sets forth the present legal situation with reference to the flag: "Section 5 of the act of February 20, 1905, chapter 592 (22 Stat. 724, 725), prohibits the registration of any trade-mark which comprises the flag or coat of arms or other insignia of the United States, or any simulation thereof. "The act of May 16, 1918, chapter 75 (40 Stat. 553), amending section 3 of Title I of the espionage act of June 15, 1917, chapter 30 (40 Stat. 217, 219), formerly provided punishment for any person who, when the United States was at war, uttered disloyal language concerning the flag, or language intended to bring the flag into contempt or disrespect. But this amending act of 1918 was repealed by the joint resolution of March 3, 1921, chapter 136 (41 Stat. 1359, 1360). There is, therefore, at present no Federal statute punishing the desecration or abuse of the flag, either in time of peace or in time of war. "A majority of the States have passed acts designed to punish the desecration of the national flag, and to prevent its use for advertising purposes. The constitutionality of such State legislation was upheld by the Supreme Court in Halter v. Nebraska (205 U. S. 34). "There is a Federal statute, similar in terms to many of the State laws which punishes the improper use of the flag in the District of Columbia, act of February 8, 1917, chapter 34 (39 Stat. 900). But there is now no Federal enactment which punishes such use outside the District. I believe that it is within the power of Congress to enact such legislation for the entire country; and my belief is supported by the words of Mr. Justice Harlan, delivering the opinion of the court in Halter v. Nebraska, above mentioned (p. 41): "It may be said that as the flag is an emblem of national sovereignty, it was for Congress alone, by appropriate legislation, to prohibit its use for illegitimate purposes. We can not yield to this view. If Congress has not chosen to legislate on this subject, and if an enactment by it would supersede State laws of like character, it does not follow that in the absence of national legislation the State is without power to act. There are matters which, by legislation, may be brought within the exclusive control of the General Government, but over which, in the absence of national legislation, the State may exert some control in the interest of its own people.' "In other words, this matter is one of those over which Congress may exercise control if it will. But until Congress actually exercises its power the States are free to act, and the silence of Congress, in this case at least, is not to be taken as a declaration that the States must refrain from acting. "(2) At the present time, then, the desecration or improper use of the flag outside of the District of Columbia has not been a Federal offense. The matter has been left to the States for action. Should Congress wish to assume control, it has power under the Constitution to do so. Whether existing conditions render such congressional legislation necessary or desirable is a question upon which I do not now feel required to decide. It is sufficient for this present opinion to ascertain that the power of legislation exists." From the above memorandum it is clear there can be no question as to the power of Congress to legislate on this subject. The legislation has the indorsement of numerous patriotic societies, and the committee feels it should receive the prompt approval of Congress. The necessity for the legislation is set forth in full in an address by Hon. J. Mayhew Wainwright, the author of this bill, to be found in the Congressional Record of March 4, 1927, volume 68, part 5, Sixty-ninth Congress, page 5931. TO AMEND SECTION 180, TITLE 28, UNITED STATES CODE, AS AMENDED JANUARY 30, 1930.-Referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be printed Mr. CHRISTOPHERSON, from the Committee on the Judiciary, submitted the following REPORT [To accompany H. R. 185] The Committee on the Judiciary, to whom was referred the bill H. R. 185, after consideration, reports the same favorably with an amendment, and recommends that the bill as amended do pass. The committee amendment is as follows: Page 3, line 9, after the word "all", insert the word "jury". This bill is to meet an emergency that now exists in the State of North Dakota. The Federal Court for the District of North Dakota, among other places, holds regular terms of court in the cites of Fargo and Grand Forks. The Government building in Fargo, in which the Federal court has held its sessions, has been razed, preparatory to the construction of a new Federal building. This leaves the court without a suitable court room in which to hear jury cases in the city of Fargo. Therefore, this bill provides that until such time as the new Federal building shall be erected in the city of Fargo, all jury cases now pending or hereafter brought in the southeastern division, which would ordinarily be heard in the city of Fargo, may be tried in the northeastern division, in the city of Grand Forks. When the Federal building is completed in the city of Fargo, and court-room facilities therein provided for, this provision will be inoperative and cases will thereafter be tried in their respective divisions. BRIDGE ACROSS SHENANDOAH RIVER IN CLARKE COUNTY, VA. JANUARY 30, 1930.-Referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be printed Mr. HUDDLESTON, from the Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce, submitted the following REPORT [To accompany H. R. 8287] The Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce, to whom was referred the bill (H. R. 8287), granting the consent of Congress to the State Highway Commission of Virginia to maintain a bridge already constructed across the Shenandoah River in Clarke County, Va., United States route No. 50, having considered the same, report thereon with a recommendation that it pass. The bill has the approval of the War and Agriculture Departments, as will appear by the letters attached and which are made a part of this report. WAR DEPARTMENT, January 25, 1930. Respectfully returned to the chairman, Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce, House of Representatives. So far as the interests committed to this department are concerned, I know of no objection to the favorable consideration of the accompanying bill, H. R. 8287, Seventy-first Congress, second session, granting the consent of Congress to the State Highway Commission of Virginia to maintain a bridge already constructed across the Shenandoah River in Clarke County, Va., United States route No. 50. PATRICK J. HURLEY, Secretary of War. Hon. JAMES S. PARKER, DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, Chairman Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce, House of Representatives. DEAR MR. PARKER: Careful consideration has been given to the bill (H. R. 8287) transmitted with your letter of January 9 with request for a report thereon and such views relative thereto as the department might desire to communicate. This bill would authorize the State Highway Commission of Virginia and its successors to maintain and operate the bridge and approaches thereto already |