We respectfully urge you to make every effort to obtain favorable action by the Judiciary Committee and actively sponsor the measure yourself in the House. Respectfully submitted. WILLIAM DREUSIKE, President. LOS ANGELES BRICK & CLAY PRODUCTS Co., Hon. JOHN F. DOCKWEILER, Congressman Sixteenth District, California, Washington, D. C. HONORABLE SIR: We wish to express our appreciation of your activity in behalf of the bill introduced by yourself known as "H. R. 5054", to amend the Heard Act. May we urge your continued support and follow-up of this measure, as it means much to our industry. Trusting you will have a pleasant and successful session, we are, HENRY PRUSSING, Secretary. Re: H. R. 5054 Hon. JOHN F. DOCKWEILER, CONCRETE ENGINEERING Co., INC., House of Representatives Office Building, Washington, D. C. DEAR SIR: I have come into possession of a copy to H. R. 5054 which you recently introduced in the House of Representatives, and I believe that this legislation meets a very long-felt need in the building-material business and largely eliminates the unsatisfactory condition under the Heard Law through which our firm and many others have suffered needless losses in the past. We wish to commend you for introducing this measure in Congress, and we also wish to request that you do everything within your power to have this reported favorably out of committee at an early date. DEAR SIR: We are taking this opportunity to solicit your support of H. R. 5054, now pending in Congress, which provides for amendments to the Heard Act, requiring separate labor and material bond inuring directly to parties performing labor or furnishing materials on Federal projects on which there is a general contractor. We feel that this will not only be beneficial to labor and materialmen, but will tend toward lower building costs based on safety in selling on the jobs. Respectfully yours, S. T. EXLEY, Secretary. BONDS OF CONTRACTORS ON PUBLIC WORKS FRIDAY, MARCH 22, 1935 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, Subcommittee No. 1 met at 10:15 a. m. in the committee room, House Office Building, Hon. John E. Miller (chairman of the subcommittee) presiding. Mr. MILLER. The meeting will please come to order. Gentlemen, we have got to close the hearings on this and the other like bill today, and it is necessary that we finish the hearing today at 10 minutes of 12. Now, we have had some hearings on some seven or eight bills dealing with the general subject of the revision of the Heard Act. The hearings that we have had have not been particularly covering this one particular bill (H. R. 6677), but the general subject treated by the Heard Act. First, let us take up the question as to whether there is anyone here representing any interests not proponents supporting any of the bills under consideration; not any special bill, but in support of a movement for a revision of the Heard Act. If there are any such, I would like to get their names first. Is there anyone here in that group? [After a pause.] All right. Now, then, let us group those who are here that want to be heard in opposition to a revision. Mr. MCLAUGHLIN. Mr. Chairman, I do not think that is the proper classification. I understand these gentlemen have come here to express their views generally on the subject. Mr. MILLER. Well, then, let us take the next group, the gentlemen who are here for the purpose of giving the committee the benefit of their suggestions; and I am going to suggest that if there is any coordination among the various groups here, that you confine your testimony and allow somebody to represent the group and give us the benefit of it. Mr. McCOMAS. Is there any group present except surety companies? [After a pause.] Mr. Chairman, we might say that these observations are coming from the standpoint of the surety companies, and that Gen. Harrison Bowie, Jr., will speak for the group. Mr. MILLER. General, will you please give your name and the company you represent to the stenographer? General BowIE. Worthington Bowie, Jr., general counsel for the Fidelity & Deposit Co. Mr. MILLER. Then, General, I would like to get the names of all who will appear for the surety companies. 143338-35-SER 4- --4 45 General BOWIE. Suppose you gentlemen give your names and the companies you represent to the stenographer. In a way I represent all of the surety companies. They all have asked me to present their views, but there will be some individua! views. However, the American Surety Co., for example, is represented also by Mr. Dean; the American Bonding Co. is represented by Mr. Charles H. McComas; Mr. McComas also represents the Fidelity & Deposit Co. of Maryland; the Aetna Casualty & Surety Co. is represented by W. Braxton Dew; the Globe Indemnity Co. is represented by Mr. Nicolaides; the Hartford Accident & Indemnity Co. is represented by Mr. T. R. Barker, superintendent of the surety department, Washington Service Branch; the Royal is represented by Mr. Becker; the Maryland Casualty Co. is represented by Col. Ralph Proctor; the United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co. is represented by Mr. M. Barrett Walker; the Fidelity & Casualty Co. is represented by Mr. Burdsall; the National Surety Co. is represented by Messrs. Billrey, Hays, Carmack, and Ronsaville. Mr. MILLER. Are there any other company representatives here? General BOWIE. The American Employers are represented by Mr. Fairbank and the United States Casualty Co. is represented by Mr. Denby. Mr. MILLER. Are there any other companies represented? General BOWIE. There is Mr. Garner Wood Denmead, vice president and general counsel of the New Amsterdam Casualty Co., Baltimore, Md. Mr. McCOMAS. Mr. Chairman, Mr. Bowie will be the spokesman for all of the group. Now, we might identify some of the others who are not represent.. ing casualty companies. Mr. SNOW. Mr. Chairman, I am representing Mr. Harding, a managing director of the Associated General Contractors of America. Mr. MILLER. What is your name? Mr. SNOW. My name is W. H. Snow, and I am here representing Mr. Harding, managing director of the Associated General Contractors of America. Mr. MILLER. Are there any other gentlemen here who might desire to appear who have not been identified thus far? Mr. SWEENEY. Mr. Chairman, Mr. Mead, Chairman of the Committee on the Post Office and oPst Roads, is the author of a bill, H. R. 6108, that has been before this committee, and which is very similar to the bill that you now have under consideration. He has asked me to come over in his behalf. Mr. MILLER. What we are going to do, Mr. Sweeney, is this: We will have a muster this morning at 10 minutes of 12 and I imagine the subcommittee will want to go into executive session when we work out what bill we will report if we will report one. However, when we have that executive session we will probably call Mr. Mead and the other authors of the various bills that have been before the committee from time to time and we will have a conference with them. Mr. SWEENEY. Then there will be no necessity for my taking your time at present and we will just have the record show that we were present at this hearing. Mr. MILLER. We are trying to get a picture of the situation now. Mr. Bloom, did you have anything before this committee? Mr. BLOOM. I understand there was some bill with reference to some committee that was taking up the question of the right to sue the Smithsonian Institution. Mr. MILLER. That is Mr. Celler's committee in the other room. Now, suppose that we proceed. General Bowie, we will be glad to hear from you now. STATEMENT OF GEN. WASHINGTON BOWIE, JR., GENERAL COUNSEL FOR THE FIDELITY & DEPOSIT CO., BALTIMORE, MD. General BOWIE. I will say at the outset, Mr. Chairman, that the position of the surety companies is not in opposition to any of these bills, but we feel that there are some very essential modifications which must be made if any of them are to become laws, and I take it that you prefer that I address myself generally to the situation rather than the particular bill because in addition to these four bills there is the uniform contract law which covers the whole thing, and then a number of other bills, some of them having not as yet reached the House, and one Senate bill which has gone so far as to provide that the surety bond should be liable for the workmen's compensation, which is one of the deplorable things but speaking of the subject generally Mr. MCLAUGHLIN (interposing). I would like to make this statement: We have had before us representatives of the materialmen, and those who would be claimants under bonds executed under the Heard Act. We discussed with them and they discussed with us the question of dual bonds instead of the single bond which is now called for under the Heard Act and I just would suggest that you discuss and give us your observation and views on the desirability, or undesirability from the standpoint of the general public, and from the standpoint of the efficient performance of the contracts, the relative advantages and disadvantages of the single bond as now provided for and the dual bonds, namely the performance bond and the bond conditioned for the payment of the material and labor. Also please discuss the limitation feature affecting the time for commencing action on the bond. Likewise please address yourself to the question of the possibility that if it is not required under the law that all contractors wait and enter their appearance in one suit, there may be a danger that the principal sum of the payment form of bond will be insufficient to protect all claimants because certain claimants were diligent in maintaining their actions earlier than others. General BOWIE. Mr. Chairman, that is what I propose to discuss. I presume that Mr. Cushman was here representing the materialmen. He appeared 3 years ago and we had hearings on the then proposed amendments to the Heard Act and for the first time he advocated the principle of law which has been adopted in Pennsylvania in 1931 for the dual bonds. Now, there were some States that already had the dual bonds. The position of the surety companies is just this, as far as the dual bond is concerned: We could not consistently oppose it because it is law in a number of States, but when you come to making it a Federal statute you are up against a proposition that is differ |