Constitutionality.-Provision NOTES OF DECISIONS of Bitumi- | Carter v. Carter Coal Co. et al. (1936), 298 nous Coal Conservation Act delegating U. S. 238. Contracts within section. -Contracts for power to fix maximum hours of labor and minimum wages to part of producers and alteration or repair of U. S. Coast Guard miners and in effect subjecting dissenting vessels, boats, and aircraft, and such contracts for the construction thereof as prominority to will of majority in respect of vide for passage of title to the U. S. during wages and hours held unconstitutional as progress of the work as partial payments unlawful delegation of power, unconstituare made are contracts for "any public work tional interference with personal liberty and or service" as that phrase is used in this private property, and a denial of due process. section. Title Guaranty & Trust Co. v. Price fixing provisions of Bituminous Coal Crane (1910), 219 U. S. 24; U. S. v. MetroConservation Act held inseparable from un-politan Body Co. et al. (C. C. A. 1935), 79 F. constitutional labor provisions of act and (2d) 177; 38 Op. Atty. Gen. No. 37, Mar. hence invalid because of such inseparability. 6, 1936. 751k. Penalty for requiring rebates.-That whoever shall induce any person employed in the construction, prosecution, or completion of any public building, public work, or building or work financed in whole or in part by loans or grants from the United States, or in the repair thereof to give up any part of the compensation to which he is entitled under his contract of employment, by force, intimidation, threat of procuring dismissal from such employment, or by any other manner whatsoever, shall be fined not more than $5,000, or imprisoned not more than five years, or both. Sec. 1, act of June 13, 1934 (48 Stat. 948); U. S. C. 40: 276b. To aid in the enforcement of the above section, the Secretary of the Treasury and the Secretary of the Interior jointly shall make reasonable regulations for contractors or subcontractors on any such building or work, including a provision that each contractor and subcontractor shall furnish weekly a sworn affidavit with respect to the wages paid each employee during the preceding week. Sec. 2, act of June 13, 1934 (48 Stat. 948); U. S. C. 40: 276c. NOTES OF DECISIONS In general. - "Contract of employment" | had agreed with any board or public official as used in this section means the agreement to pay or which the Government required between the contractor and the workman, not him to pay (U. S. C. 40: 276b, 276c). the contract between the contractor and the public body in charge of the work (U. S. C. 40: 276b, 276c). This section is not violated where worker receives whole amount of wages employer agreed to pay when he went to work though employee was induced, by whatever means, to accept lower rate of pay than he might have insisted upon by reason of his skill of classification or than that which the contractor Contractors who had agreed with public body in charge of the construction to pay higher wages to skilled laborers, but who hired men as common laborers and agreed to pay them as common laborers when in fact they were skilled laborers and worked at skilled labor, held not indictable for conspiracy to violate this section (U. S. C. 40: 276b, 276c). United States v. Golder (D. C 1935), 11 F. Supp. 870. 752. Supreme Court; reports, distribution. An amendment to this section by section 5, Title III, act of June 20, 1936 (49 Stat. 1549), concerns only the number of copies of Supreme Court Reports to be furnished the Library of the Supreme Court and the Library of Congress. 754. Evidence; defendants in criminal cases. NOTES OF DECISIONS testimony when testifying in his own behalf after defendant moved for directed verdict at close of Government's case and announced intention to stand on motion. Id. Right of defendant to testify and weight | held not error, though codefendant gave such of his testimony.-Statute making accused competent witness at his own request removed common-law incapacity of party to testify in his own behalf. Brown v. U. S. (C. C. A. 1932), 56 F. (2d) 997. Status of defendant testifying.-Accused testifying in his own behalf is subject to cross-examination like other witnesses. Brown v. U. S. (C. C. A. 1932), 56 F. (2d) 997. Comment on failure to testify.-Com-. ment on the failure of the accused to testify is forbidden. Rice v. U. S. (C. C. A. 1929), 35 F. (2d) 689, certiorari denied (1930) 281 U. S. 730, holding that reference to failure to call certain witnesses did not constitute Refusing to strike part of codefendant's such a comment. testimony referring to moving defendant 755. Same; copies of departmental records. (a) Copies of any books, records, papers, or other documents in any of the executive departments, or of any corporation all of the stock of which is beneficially owned by the United States, either directly or indirectly, shall be admitted in evidence equally with the originals thereof, when duly authenticated under the seal of such department or corporation, respectively. (b) Books or records of accounts in whatever form, and minutes (or portions thereof) of proceedings, of any such executive department or corporation, or copies of such books, records, or minutes authenticated under the seal of such department or corporation, shall be admissible as evidence of any act, transaction, occurrence, or event as a memorandum of which such books, records, or minutes were kept or made. (c) The seal of any such executive department or corporation shall be judicially noticed. R. S. 882, as amended by sec. 6, act of June 19, 1934 (48 Stat. 1109); U. S. C. 28: 661. The first paragraph of the original text of this section has been amended to read as above. NOTES OF DECISIONS In general.-Documents of Government | paragraph of this section by the second department, kept pursuant to law, of which paragraph are admissible since the originals public has knowledge, are admissible in evi- would have been. Price v. State (Tex. dence, where material. State v. Bolen 1931), 38 S. W. (2d) 811. (Wash. 1927), 254 Pac. 445. War Department records of deceased's fingerprints held admissible in murder prosecution without extrinsic testimony identifying records, since the mere fact of uniform keeping of records of fingerprints of members of Army by War Department is prima facie proof of their genuineness. Id. Witnesses from War Department could not testify as to whether fingerprints, enlistment and service records offered in murder prosecution, were of public or private nature, question being for court. Id. "Evidence equally with the originals."— Photostatic copies properly certified of vouchers, etc., brought within the first Probative value.-Court will not accept certified copies as proof of corrections of figures in documents certified by Government official receiving documents from other official, department, or commission. Certification of document proves only document itself, but does not establish as fact correctness of statements or figures therein. Thus documents certified by Comptroller General were not competent as proof of their contents or of correctness of his determination, where the documents were based on figures derived from the Federal Trade Commission. Mohawk Condensed Milk Co. v. U. S. (1930), 70 Ct. Cls. 671. 755a. Same; writing and records made in regular course of business.-That in any court of the United States and in any court established by Act of Congress, any writing or record, whether in the form of an entry in a book or otherwise, made as a memorandum or record of any act, transaction, occurrence, or event, shall be admissible as evidence of said act, transaction, occurrence, or event, if it shall appear that it was made in the regular course of any business, and that it was the regular course of such business to make such memorandum or record at the time of such act, transaction, occurrence, or event or within a reasonable time thereafter. All other circumstances of the making of such writing or record, including lack of personal knowledge by the entrant or maker, may be shown to affect its weight, but they shall not affect its ad missibility. The term "business" shall include business, profession, occupation, and calling of every kind. Sec. 1, act of June 20, 1936 (49 Stat. 1561); U. S. C. 28: 695. Further provisions of this act provide for the admission in evidence of foreign documents and the execution of commissions by consular officers. Appropriations available for the payment of fees and costs in the case of witnesses subpenaed in behalf of the United States are made available for expenses incurred by the United States for this purpose. Executive Order No. 7470, October 15, 1936, prescribes regulations governing the authentication of certified copies of foreign public records, the manner of executing and returning commissions by diplomatic and consular officers in criminal cases, and schedules of fees and compensation allowable in such cases. 757. Habeas corpus; power of courts. NOTES OF DECISIONS In general.-Federal court cannot inter- | (D. C. 1909) 175 Fed. 230. And see to the fere with State's administration of criminal same effect, In re Boles (C. C. A. 1891), 47 law by habeas corpus where State makes available process adequate to correct trial errors. Dunn v. Lyons (C. C. A. 1928), 23 F. (2d) 14, certiorari denied (1928), 276 U. S. 622. Restriction to territorial jurisdiction.The power to issue writs of habeas corpus is restricted to the territorial jurisdiction of the court to which the application is made. The general holding is that the Federal courts have no power or authority to issue a writ of habeas corpus to be sent out of their reDective jurisdictions. Ex parte Gouyet Fed. 75; Ex parte Kenyon (C. C. 1878), 14 Fed. Cas. No. 7720; In re Brickley (D. C. 1865), 3 Fed. Cas. No. 1387. It appears, however, that the District Court for the Northern District of Illinois has discharged prisoners confined in Leavenworth prison, apparently on the theory that the court imposing the sentence had jurisdiction to inquire on habeas corpus into the validity thereof. See Ex parte Gouyet (D. C. 1909), 175 Fed. 230; Ex parte Yee Hick Ho (D. C. 1929), 53 F. (2d) 360. 759. Same; conditions for issue of writ. NOTES OF DECISIONS Courts martial or military commission.termined that detention is unlawful, court Statute requiring court, in habeas corpus may consider circumstances for purpose of proceeding, to dispose of party as law and deciding what disposition to make of petiJustice require, vests in court sound discre- tioner. Id. tion as to disposition in light of all facts and circumstances. Menefee v. Aderhold, Warden (D. C. 1932), 5 F. Supp. 102. In habeas corpus proceeding by one sentenced by court martial, court has no juristion to examine into merits of case for purpose of determining whether writ should be sustained. Id. Where court, in habeas corpus proceeding by one sentenced by court martial, has de766. Same; hearing and disposition. On habeas corpus, where death sentence by naval court martial, as commuted to life imprisonment, was void, and petitioner had already been imprisoned over 14 years, and there was at least grave question as to whether evidence was sufficient to establish guilt of murder beyond reasonable doubt, held petitioner should be discharged. Id. NOTES OF DECISIONS Persons in custody of military authori- |titling them to habeas corpus, where civil ties.-Arrest and detention of petitioners government was not suspended. U. S. ex rel. without charges by State militia under order Palmer v. Adams (D. C. 1927), 26 F. (2d) from Governor to suppress insurrection vio- 141. lated petitioners' constitutional rights, en767. Witness fees. When any clerk or other officer of the United States is sent away from his place of business as a witness for the Government, his necessary expenses, stated in items and sworn to, in going, returning, and attendance on the court, shall be audited and paid; but no mileage or other compensation in addition to his salary shall in any case be allowed. R. S. 850; U. S. C. 28: 604. During the fiscal year 1933 (a) the per diem fee authorized to be paid to jurors under section 2 of the Act of April 26, 1926 (44 Stat. 323), shall be $3, instead of $4; (b) the per diem fee authorized to be paid to witnesses under section 3 of the Act of April 26, 1926 (44 Stat. 323), shall be $1.50 instead of $2 * * * Sec. 323, Title III, part II, act of June 30, 1932 (47 Stat. 413); continued in force by sec. 4 (a), Title II, act of Mar. 20, 1933 (48 Stat. 13); sec. 24, Title II, independent offices appropriation act of Mar. 28, 1934 (48 Stat. 522); sec. 3, Labor Department Appropriation Act of Mar. 22, 1935, Title IV (49 Stat. 105); and Department of Justice Appropriation Act of May 15, 1936, Title II (49 Stat. 1331). The above provisions are added as new paragraphs of this section. NOTES OF DECISIONS In general. Under third paragraph of | U. S. 444 answering question certified from original section additional amounts paid as (C. C. A. 1931) 52 F. (2d) 313. Certiorari compensation or fees to expert witnesses denied (1932) 284 U. S. 683. cannot be allowed or taxed as costs in cases in the Federal courts, and a State statute authorizing courts to tax expert witness fees as cost inapplicable to Federal courts by virtue of this section. Henkel v. Chi-1929), 30 F. (2d) 334. cago, St. P. M. & O. Ry. Co. (1932), 284 Travel.-Mileage for that part only of the necessary travel which is within the district can be taxed, under first paragraph above. Ladd & Tilton Bank v. U. S. (C. C. A. CHAPTER 14 Jurisdiction: COURT OF CLAIMS Claims against the United States, 768 Claims of disbursing officers, 770 (Ju- Decree in case of loss by a disbursing of ficer, 773 (Judicial Code, sec. 147). Claims pending in other courts, 775 (Judi- Time limit for filing claims, 776 (Judicial Petitions and verifications, 777 (Judicial No interest allowed before judgment, 785 Evidence furnished by Departments, 791. 768. Jurisdiction; claims against the United States (Judicial Code, sec. 145 par. 1). NOTES OF DECISIONS In general. The court has no jurisdiction of an informal claim for services rendered to the War Department unless it has been passed on by the Secretary of War. Philadelphia Boiler Works v. U. S. (1929), 67 Ct. Cls. 311. United States can be sued only by its consent, which may be withdrawn by statute at any time. Ginochio v. United States (C. C. A. 1934), 74 F. (2d) 42. 769. Same; set-offs (Judicial Code, sec. 145, par. 2). NOTES OF DECISIONS tions on suit for such pay runs from the time such pay becomes due and payable. Willis I. Thompson v. U. S. (1934), 79 Ct. Cls. 224. Actions within proviso.-A suit by an of- | Judicial Code; and the statute of limitaficer of the Army to recover difference in Army pay is not a suit by an officer of the United States to recover "fees for services" within the meaning of section 145 of the 770. Same; claims of disbursing officers (Judicial Code, sec. 145, par. 3). NOTES OF DECISIONS Jurisdiction.-The Court of Claims has jurisdiction of a suit by a major, Quartermaster Corps, U. S. Army, to recover deduc tions from his pay made to recoup the Government for losses sustained by a commissary and general sales store of which he was in charge through a regular detail, and for a decree relieving him from responsibility for such losses. Sections 145 and 147, Judicial Code. White v. U. S. (1931), 72 Ct. Cls. 375. Effect of delegation of functions.-An assistant, or "agent", disbursing officer of the Army is pecuniarily responsible for proper disbursement of the funds in his hands, and without authority to delegate their disbursement to another person; and where he intrusts their disbursement to another by whose fraudulent disbursement or appropriation of them they are lost to the Government, he is not entitled to relief under sections 145 and 147 of the Judicial Code (title 28, secs. 250, 253, U. S. C.). William B. Wright v. U. S. (1933), 77 Ct. Cls. 731. 773. Decree in case of loss by disbursing officer (Judicial Code, sec. 147). NOTES OF DECISIONS U. S. (1911), 46 Ct. Cls. 416. Fault or negligence. Where an officer guarded, his precautionary measures entitle personally inspects a safe containing Gov- him to the benefit of the statute. Clark v ernment funds, the room where it is kept, the means taken for its security, changing the combination of the lock, and keeping a sergeant of good record as watchman with strict orders not to leave the safe un NOTE. The above should be substituted for the last paragraph under this subhead, commencing "officer's precautionary measures", etc. |