clusive upon all officers of the Government, except for fraud, and if claimant accepts the award, he thereby releases his claim both against the United States and against the employee whose negligence or wrongful conduct gave rise to the claim. Finally, section 202 of title II requires that the Federal agencies make an annual report to the Congress of all claims settled or determined.

The CHAIRMAN. Do you want to run through that or do you want to be interrupted when a member may want to ask some question? Mr. SHEA. I would like to be interrupted, Mr. Chairman, at any point where I can be helpful.

The CHAIRMAN. I do not know whether any member would like to ask you a question at this time, but I want to ask you a question on the point of making the award conclusive. Where is that language? Mr. MICHENER. It says upon the acceptance by the claimant of the award the claimant releases his claim against the United States. Mr. SHEA. Yes; if the award is accepted.

The CHAIRMAN. Where is that language?

Mr. BARNES. Line 16.

The CHAIRMAN. What page?

Mr. MICHENER. Page 3 on line 16.

Mr. SPRINGER. That provision starts back in line 7.

I presume you are speaking now about claims which are in excess of $1,000? Is that correct?

Mr. SHEA. I am now referring to the administrative settlement of claims of not more than $1,000.

Mr. SATTERFIELD. That is personal as well as property?

Mr. SHEA. Claims for either property loss or damage, or for personal injury or death.

And the provision to which the chairman refers starts on line 16 of page 3, and reads as follows:

The acceptance by the claimant of any such award, compromise, or settlement shall be final and conclusive on the claimant, and shall constitute a complete release by the claimant of any claim against the United States and against the employee of the Government whose act or omission gave rise to the claim, by reason of the same subject matter.

Mr. CHAIRMAN. Does the Government have any right to object to an award?

Mr. SHEA. Does the Government have any right?

The CHAIRMAN. Yes; is there any appeal to any other agency by the Government?

Mr. SHEA. No; not under the terms of this bill.

Mr. CELLER. It might be well, Mr. Shea, if you gave the suggestions in the bill originally reported, as well as the new suggestions along that line. I believe we have now had this bill thoroughly considered by the Attorney General.

Mr. SHEA. That is right. And I was going to cover all the changes made, title by title.

Mr. ROBSION. Before the gentleman passes title II, page 3, please tell me what is the procedure in the event the claimant does not accept the award. If a

Mr. SHEA. If he does not accept the award he may bring suit. claim has been presented to a Federal agency, he may bring suit after it is disposed of by the agency or after the claim has been withdrawn. from the agency.

Mr. ROBSION. Is that true with reference to claims less than $1,000? Mr. SHEA. Yes; the claimant may of course bring suit at once for an amount not in excess of $7,500, but only claims of $1,000 or less may be presented to the Federal agency for administrative adjust

ment.

Mr. ROBSION. Where does claimant bring the suit?

Mr. SHEA. The suit is to be brought in the district courts in the several districts.

Mr. ROBSION. Where the claimant resides?

Mr. SHEA. Either where the claimant resides, or in the locale of the injury or damage.

Mr. ROBSION. There is one other point. It says here, "any such award or determination shall be final and conclusive on all officers of the Government except when procured by means of fraud." You mean where the claimant procures the award by fraud?

Mr. SHEA. That is right.

Mr. ROBSION. What action is to be taken then? How do you do that?

Mr. SHEA. Where an award has been secured by fraud and is paid, the United States will have an action to recover back the amount. Mr. ROBSION. After the award is made and he has collected the money then the Government can bring a suit to recover the money? Mr. SHEA. If it has been obtained by fraud.

Mr. SPRINGER. I would like to direct your attention, Mr. Shea, to line 19. Why do you provide this acceptance of the award as constituting a bar to the claim against the employee? Is that the intention of the provision, and what is the ultimate purpose of it?

Mr. SHEA. I gather that that was the question to which the chairman was also directing his attention, and the answer is this: It has been found that the Government, through the Department of Justice, is constantly being called on by the heads of the various agencies to go in and defend, we will say, a person who is driving a mail truck when suit is brought against him for damages or injuries caused while he was operating the truck within the scope of his duties. Allegations of negligence are usually made. It has been found, over long years of experience, that unless the Government is willing to go in and defend such persons the consequence is a very real attack upon the morale of the services. Most of these persons are not in a position to stand or defend large damage suits, and they are of course not generally in a position to secure the kind of insurance which one would if one were driving for himself.

If the Government has satisfied a claim which is made on account of a collision between a truck carrying mail and a private car, that should, in our judgment, be the end of it. After the claimant has obtained satisfaction of his claim from the Government, either by a judgment or by an administrative award, he should not be able to turn around and sue the driver of the truck. If he could sue the driver of the truck, we would have to go in and defend the driver in the suit brought against him, and there will thus be continued a very substantial burden which the Government has had to bear in conducting the defense of post-office drivers and other Government employees. Mr. MCLAUGHLIN. Have you considered the practice followed by large corporations and railway companies with respect to defense of employees who are joined as defendants in negligence actions?.

Mr. SHEA. I should think that what ordinarily happens in the case of an accident caused by a driver for a big corporation is that suit is brought jointly against the two, and usually it is satisfied by the corporation, and then ordinarily the corporation's remedy against the driver is to fire him if he is negligent too often. Ordinarily the corporations cover such risks by insurance, which is paid for by the employer, I think.

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Shea, you are discussing and directing your remarks to the matter where, if a person is injured and files a claim against the Government and the Government satisfies that claim, that is the end of the claim against anybody?

Mr. SHEA. That is right.

The CHAIRMAN. What is the arrangement when the government has an employee who is guilty of gross negligence and injury results? Is there any requirement that that employee should in any way respond to the Government if it has to pay for the injury, in the event of gross negligence?

Mr. SHEA. Not if he is a Government employee. Under those circumstances, the remedy is to fire the employee.

Mr. MCLAUGHLIN. No right of subrogation is set up?
Mr. SHEA. Not against the employee.

The CHAIRMAN. May I ask this question: This is rather important, it strikes me, but in the main it might not be important at all, and that is this: The government has so many agencies now in process of being scattered apparently over the country, and the question is whether or not there ought to be some central supervision, or inspection or reporting, or something that would have a general oversight over all this business and tend, if possible, to bring about some uniformity to the amount of money that can be collected from the same character of accident from these various agencies. Have you got that in this bill?

Mr. SHEA. No; it is not in this bill.

In the bill which was previously before you there was a provision which was so designed; that is, the prior bill provided that in claims up to $500, the determination of the head of the particular agency would be final, but as to claims from $500 to $1,000 there would be a review by the Attorney General. It also provided that the Attorney General might make rules and regulations for the purpose of securing uniformity. Those provisions have been eliminated, because it appeared to the Attorney General that they would require a duplication of operations on claims of relatively small amounts, and in his judgment the review procedure was not deemed desirable.

The CHAIRMAN. What report is made by these agencies to any central agency, if any?

Mr. SHEA. It is provided in section 202 that a report shall be made every year to the Congress.

The CHAIRMAN. Of course, Congress never sees that. Some Members might at some time when they want to. They just do not read them and do not have time to, that is the trouble.

Mr. SHEA. That is the single provision in the act itself. There will

of course be a report to the Bureau of the Budget.

Mr. O'HARA. I would like to ask a question, Mr. Chairman.

The CHAIRMAN. Yes, Mr. O'Hara.

Mr. O'HARA. Mr. Shea, I notice from reading the first part of title II, section 201, that it is the intention of the act to permit the heads of each of the Federal agencies to make these settlements of claims. Does that refer to claims in tort or contract or both?

Mr. SHEA. This act refers exclusively to tort claims.

Mr. O'HARA. Do you think that some of the heads of these agencies are experienced in the matter of the settlement of the type of claims which arise out of tort actions?

Mr. SHEA. I think as an administrative matter it will have to be a person designated by the head of the agency.

Mr. O'HARA. As a general proposition the Government is not responsible for the negligent acts of its servants; is not that true?

Mr. SHEA. That is the general rule. The history of Government immunity is covered fully in the document which is before you. That immunity has been broken down very considerably over the course of the years. Provisions have been made by the Congress for administrative adjustment of tort claims which amount to a general recognition of responsibility for the wrongs of Government agents. In the 1922 act, you have authorized administrative settlements up to $1,000 in the case of property loss or damage caused by the fault of Federal officers and employees. You have made provision in respect to various agencies, although not a uniform provision, for settlement of claims on account of personal injuries, generally not over $500. The Public Vessels Act has provided for suits on maritime torts involving Government vessels, and there is another statute in respect to maritime torts involving merchant vessels owned or operated by the United States, and so on. There has been a constant erosion of governmental immunity against tort claims over the years.

Mr. O'HARA. Of course, claims can still be filed by way of special bill for legislative action by the Congress. Do you mean when they file a claim with the proper committee and it is allowed by Congress that that is a special recognition for the recovery of a tort action? Mr. SHEA. Yes; but in addition to that there has been consent to the bringing of particular tort actions, in effect a special recognition of the Government's responsibility.

This matter has been debated in this committee so many times that I thought I would not go over it here. But, generally speaking, there are some 2,000 of these claims per Congress before the claims committees. The Members of Congress themselves have said there is no possibility of having a really adequate hearing on each of these bills, nor of there being any uniform treatment of these claims. There still remains this immense burden upon Congress, and particularly in these times that was one of the things stressed in the President's messageit would seem desirable to relieve them of that burden and permit them to focus on matters of much more moment.

Mr. O'HARA. Under this bill is there any limit as to what this agency or that agency can allow the claimant as to amount?

Mr. SHEA. Under this bill there is a top limit of $1,000.

Mr. O'HARA. One thousand dollars?

Mr. SHEA. That is right.

Mr. O'HARA. In other words, that is the top limit generally in recognizing the responsibility of the Government for torts?

Mr. SHEA. That would probably cover the regular run of common law tort claims. Of course, suits could be brought on claims up to $7,500.

Mr. O'HARA. And what would you think as to the effect of such an act in increasing the recklessness of drivers of Government-owned vehicles?

Mr. CRAVENS. They cannot get any more reckless than they are. Mr. SHEA. I think one has to draw on analogous situations. So far as I know, the experience in States where there is compulsory insurance has not indicated a sharp increase in the negligence of automobile drivers.

Mr. O'HARA. Of course, we have a great many more drivers now. Mr. SHEA. I mean if you take two comparable States, and one has insurance and the other has not, I do not think the insured State will show an appreciably greater number of negligènt accidents.

Mr. O'HARA. Does this cover drivers of the vehicles operated by the Army and Navy?

Mr. SHEA. There is a specific exception as to military and naval activity in time of war. It will cover them in time of peace.

Mr. O'HARA. What would be the reason, Mr. Shea, for that exception?

Mr. SHEA. I think so far as suit is concerned, at least, the reason for excepting them is rather clear. You cannot afford to have Army and Navy officers subpenaed all over the country, in time of war.

Mr. O'HARA. Of course, it is a sad situation if you have negligent drivers driving trucks and cars causing injury and damages to persons and property and the claimants have to wait until the war is over before they can prosecute their claims for damages.

Mr. SHEA. There is a real problem there, Mr. O'Hara. But you just cannot say to a colonel who is miles distant from this country, possibly in the Philippine Islands, "Come back to testify in this tort case. It is out of the question in these times.

Mr. O'HARA. I recognize that, of course.

Mr. SHEA. It is even out of the question to say to certainly most officers, even if they are right in the locality, "Come over and spend your time in a lawsuit."

So I think, so far as litigation is concerned, you probably would not want to subject the Army to lawsuits on torts. It may very well be that you would want to extend their capacity to make administrative settlements beyond the capacity they now have. But I should think you would hesitate to subject them to litigation in time of war.

Mr. SPRINGER. Mr. Shea, as I understand you, under your corrected bill, H. R. 6463, the heads of the departments have the authority to make these settlements up to $1,000 without any intervention on the part of the Attorney General?

Mr. SHEA. That is right.

Mr. SPRINGER. The provision respecting the refusal to review by the Attorney General was in the bill, H. R. 5373; is that not correct? Mr. SHEA. That is right.

I should note this in connection with that: When suit is brought, the Attorney General has the exclusive power, as he normally enjoys the exclusive power, of settling or compromising the claim.

Mr. CELLER. Mr. Shea, aside from the elimination of the review by the Attorney General, I note in the new bill, H. R. 6463, you