satisfactory to the committee. It might be a duplication and I do not want to take more of the committee's time. Mr. LANE. You have agreed with Mr. Bryan as to the presentation of this case. Any further questions? Mr. MARKWELL. Thank you very much. Later on, if the committee decides to go down into that section we will have further opportunity to investigate. I know you have been advised that this hearing would be a short hearing and we want to get to the preliminary stage later on to pick up all these ends. I would like to offer for the record the results of an investigation that the Coast Guard caused to be made by the Arthur D. Little, Inc., company, which investigation was made to determine the properties of this commodity where it was exploded. The investigation was made after the explosion. I am not offering it as a precautionary measure but merely to show the results of the investigation as to the very dangerous qualities of the product itself and that comes from the Government themselves. I believe you gave us permission to put in the book which Mr. Thompson also referred to. Mr. LANE. Bryan, rather than call on you at this moment, do you mind if the committee rises and resumes say, about 2 o'clock. And in the meantime we can respectfully request the several members of our committee who had engagements to return at that time and listen to your remarks. Mr. BRYAN. It will be a privilege and an opportunity, Mr. Chair man. Mr. LANE. You know, Mr. Bryan, our sessions start at 12 o'clock and the bill that is in the House for discussion is a very important bill-a military appropriation bill and defense appropriation bill. A few of the Members have gone over and when they go into general debate this afternoon the chances are they may be able to come back here with us and listen to you or to any other persons who may desire to address the committee. Mr. BRYAN. I Would be greatly obliged for that opportunity. Mr. THOMPSON. I do not think you have on your list Judge Robinson, county judge of Galveston County. Some time in the course of the hearings I would appreciate if you would hear him. Mr. LANE. We will be glad to. Will you be back at 2 o'clock. (Whereupon at 12 noon the subcommittee adjourned until 2 p. m. of the same day.) AFTERNOON SESSION The House Judiciary Subcommittee No. 2 resumed its session at 2 p.m., Wednesday, May 11, the Honorable Thomas J. Lane presiding. Mr. LANE. Now, Mr. Bryan, if you do not mind, I understand that Mr. Robinson, county judge, may have to leave. Will it be convenient for him to be heard now? Mr. BRYAN. Yes, Mr. Chairman. It will be a privilege to yield to him. Mr. LANE. Thank you. You may proceed, Judge. STATEMENT OF HON. T. R. ROBINSON, COUNTY JUDGE, GALVESTON COUNTY, TEX. Judge ROBINSON. Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the committee, I am deeply grateful for this opportunity to say a few words to this committee. I was county judge of Galveston County. I am now, and was on April 16 and 17 of 1947, and I have been contiuously since that time. I want the committee to know that I am appearing here as a public service and as a citizen. I have no connections in a pecuniary way with any claim of any of the claimants. I represent none of the insurance companies. I am not related, so far as I know, by blood or marriage to any of the claimants so I believe I can be fairly neutral so far as pecuniary advantage is concerned. The brief remarks I have to make will be based on the hope and the premises as contained in the report of the Committee on the Judiciary on the Texas City disaster which was written in the last session which, I understand, was by a subcommittee and approved by the full committee later. It states at page 17: For the reasons set out in the preceding pages, the committee is of the considered opinion that the Government is wholly responsible for the explosions at Texas City and the resulting catastrophe. It therefore recommends that Congress take appropriate action through legislation to compensate claimants for appropriate damage, personal injury, and death caused by the exposions which occurred at Texas City, Tex., on April 16 and 17 of 1947. I listened very carefully this morning to the very astute and scholarly discussion of the law. Not being familiar with all the ramifications of the law, naturally I would not be in a position to say yea or nay. But, as if we were discussing the cold principles of law, a picture flashed through my mind of that day on April 16, 1947, when I walked to my home which was a few blocks from the courthouse. I saw a solid string of automobiles of every class, kind, and description, as far east and as far west as Galveston leading from the mainland of Galveston loaded down with the dying and people with their arms off and legs off and their eyes out. I heard this discussion of the 47 firemen. I do not mean to be sentimental about it, but you have to be-when of that 47 firemen, practically everyone of them was my personal friend. When others whom you have known for years and years and years-your personal friends killed in this explosion which they tell me was as bad, if not worse, than an atomic bomb. I talked to Father Chataignon who spent much of his life on the battlefields of Europe and he said, no where at any time did he see any devastation and injuries as those which occurred in the Texas City explosion. So, what I want to add in a very brief and humble way is to ask this committee in the spirit of humanity and justice that, if you find, as the last committee did, that the Government is responsible, that these people, so far as money will recompense them, will be provided for. And I am sincere in this statement that no matter what this Congress enacts or how much these people will get, it will never recompense them and their families for the suffering and anguish that happened at Texas City. That is the statement I would like to make to you. I consider it a privilege to do it. In my heart I think they deserve it. And I would like to adopt as part of my statement the statements made by my former colleague in the House, the Honorable Price Daniel, a former member of the Texas Legislature. I know what he says is correct and his thinking is sound. I see these people every day with their legs off and their eyes out; some hopelessly crippled for life; and I know why they feel as they do. It is no fault of yours and no fault of anyone. But what they cannot understand is why it takes so long if the Government is responsible. It is for this Congress to help them when they helped farmers and other people so quickly. We understand it. They don't. From the committee's questions I believe in my heart, and I believe I can say I know from your questions that you realize humanity's interest in this thing. And when I go back I will tell them that from the questions of this committee that I am hopeful, and I believe, that the individuals whose lives were lost, the maimed and the suffering today, will in the spirit of humanity and good will be recompensed by the representatives of the people-the Congress of the United States. Mr. LANE. Are you judge in Texas City? Judge ROBINSON. No, sir. Texas City is the mainland section of the county which, of course, is part of Galveston County. My jurisdiction is the entire country including Texas City. Mr. LANE. Do you come from Texas City yourself? Mr. Markwell asked me to mention this before I close. I do not want to take up too much of your time. You have been very kind and considerate. I did have some personal experience in this because, as county judge in Texas, I am the probate judge. So, I have had frequent occasion to talk to the widows and widowers regarding these cases. I know what they went through and I remember this incident very distinctly with reference to the longshoremen. The insurance companies wanted to settle that on the basis of 50 percent. It could not be approved because it involved minors without my approval which I refused to do until the claim had been thoroughly investigated by the Industrial Insurance Board of Texas under the Workmen's Compensation Act. After an investigation they decided because of the doubtful legal liability to settle these claims on a 50 percent basis. So far as the longshoremen were concerned I know that is correct. Getting down to a personal note, my brother is the mayor of Texas City. I was greatly concerned for his safety. Reports were coming in and they had Robinsons and Smiths and Jones in the hospital and no one knew any first names. But I do remember this: The fact that he was out in the backyard working on his garage probably saved his life. His home was approximately 2 miles from where the Grandcamp exploded. That blew in all the doors and the glass from the windows was driven into the wall. That is how deadly the explosion was. I remember another instance: Big hunks of steel weighing tons were thrown miles across the city and one went into a backyard and made a hole as big as this room. It was a terrible thing. Mr. LANE. How far is Galveston from Texas City? Judge ROBINSON. Fourteen miles. I was in my office at the time the blast shook the courthouse which is a solid structure-as solid as you could make it-marble and stone. The explosion made it tremble. On the early morning of the 17th, the explosion of the Highflyer was of such intensity that it raised me out of my bed and onto the floor and the ship was 14 miles away. Mr. LANE. Thank you very much, Judge, for waiting. You have been so patient and we appreciate your very kind remarks. You The committee will now hear Judge Bryan, of Houston, Tex. We are pleased to have you before the committee again. were very helpful to the committee and cooperative last year, both here and in Texas, working back and forth trying to work out some sort of legislation and we appreciate your coming here before the committee again to give us your thoughts on this very important matter. STATEMENT OF MR. AUSTIN Y. BRYAN, JR., ATTORNEY, ESPERSON BUILDING, HOUSTON, TEX. Mr. BRYAN. That is quite a pleasant courtesy and a generous statement to hear and we are here in appreciation of the same character of cooperation you have given us, to explain our views and our theories as to responsibility. May I suggest that I speak for all the counsel in the case to simplify this and to return it to some focus and perspective by suggesting that the real opinion of the Congress in passing and promoting the Tort Claims Act was an effort to reconcile the modern approach to the subject which, probably unwillingly, but effectively, was frustrated by the majority opinion of the Supreme Court. It is our belief that Congress did intend the classes of injuries and conditions similar to those to be covered by the Tort Claims Act. The fact that the Court held it was not, that jurisdiction had not been accorded in the language of Congress, no matter what Congress intended, poses the problem where next to go to bring all of this into some sort of orderly presentation. We considered we had the next jurisdiction for succor, that is, the Congress. And we come here as a disaster area or as a disaster plea. That disaster is present, is obvious. But I very honestly, logically, and unemotionally believe that the theory that "The King can do no wrong" is one that has been largely abandoned in most of the civilized areas of the earth and especially where laws of fairness and justice have applied. We think it is not a duty of this Congress basically. But we think it is an opportunity because the Congress, in its wisdom, will decide what it should or should not do in the public interest or benefit. But it is an opportunity of the Congress to redeclare its own willingness to abandon that old archaic theory. Mr. Justice Jackson had a rather cutting and cynical view of it. He said, the Government was willing to abandon it for little wrongs but had a great abhorrence for doing it for big wrongs. If we justify it in terms of responsibility the big wrong is just as much deserving of your attention as the little wrong. I should like these formalities first, if I may, to suggest attention or reintroduction of the former record made last year which must have been quite adequate before it could have justified such a strong, persuasive, and impelling report-two reports of this committee finding in unqualified, authoritative language responsibility on the Government; and that character of responsibility which would have been legal responsibility had the Government been operating as an individual. If you recall quickly, the very core and text of the Tort Claims Act was that Congress had too long hidden behind the so-called theory of sovereign immunity. And when you use the word "sovereign" you mean the relegation to the ancient days of the kings. But it does express the purpose of the act to say that if, as, and when the Government is guilty of an act, for which an individual would be liable, that was the yardstick. It did have these exceptions for these exclusions of jurisdiction by the Supreme Court. So, we are here seeking the real, jurisdictional bounty of this committee. And we do it, in my own situation, in terms across the board. I represent personally personal-injury, property claims and insurance subrogated carriers. To begin with, may I put at rest quickly what was said this morning in terms of a misapprehension of what the Supreme Court said. At no time has the Supreme Court found on the facts as against these claims, if the Government could have been treated as an individual operator. On the contrary, we take this view, and we draw it from the language of the Supreme Court itself, and here is that language: The Court of Appeals en banc unanimously reversed * * * but since only 3 of the 6 judges explicitly rejected the bulk of these findings, we shall consider the case as one in which they come to us unimpaired. That is very simple and direct in its connotations and its meaning must be apparent to all. Then, the theories presented this morning must give way to the fact that the Supreme Court stated the complete and overwhelming evidence of negligence which completely parallels the judgment—the quasi-judicial judgment-of this committee. Last year it became apparent that the district court's feeling of conviction on the responsibility of the Government could hardly be stronger than those that are clear in the somewhat outraged views of this committee in its report. This whole thing began in disaster. It ended in disaster. It is written in terms of probably the most unnecessary, the most unjustified, accident, causing as great a single area of damage as this country has experienced in its whole history, not excluding the San Francisco fire. It began in disaster in this way-and I may divert and reply to Mr. Brickfield's question. Shortly before the end of the war and right after the end of the war Congress passed an act to enable the rehabilitation of three occu |