explicitly expressive of that purpose would have been used; and that the language of section 41, granting in general terms the same jurisdiction to the district court of the United States in Porto Rico as have the district courts of the United States does not import an extension of the substantive rights and obligations of our admiralty law to Porto Rico. "We might, if necessary, as we think it is not, find further support for our conclusions as to the sound interpretation of the applicable provisions of the organic act, supra, by reference to the two attempts by Congress to limit, within the United States, the doctrine of the Jensen case. That case was decided on May 21, 1917. It held the New York compensation act inapplicable to maritime laborers. On October 6, 1917, Congress, by 40 Stat. 395, amended Judicial Code, section 24 (3), being Comp. St. 1918, Comp. St. Ann. Supp. 1919, section 991 (3), by adding to the saving clause as to common-law remedies the following: "And to claimants the rights and remedies under the workmen's compensation law of any State. An analogous amendment was also made to section 256 (3) of the Judicial Code (sec. 1233). This attempt of Congress to permit the application of compensation acts to maritime laborers was held unconstitutional in Knickerbocker Ice Co. v. Stewart, supra, in 1920. Thereafter, on June 10, 1922, 42 Stat. 634 (Comp. St. Ann. Supp. 1923, sec. 991 (3)), a further attempt was made to permit the application of workmen's compensation acts to certain classes of maritime employees by extending the saving clause with relation to the jurisdiction of the district court so as to read: 66 6* * * Saving to suitors in all cases the right of a common-law remedy where the common law is competent to give it, and to claimants for compensation for injuries to or death of persons other than the master or members of the crew of a vessel their rights and remedies under the workmen's compensation law of any State, District, Territory, or possession of the United States, which rights and remedies when conferred by such law shall be exclusive; of all seizures on land or waters not within admiralty and maritime jurisdiction; of all prizes brought into the United States; and of all proceedings for the condemnation of property taken as prize: Provided, That the jurisdiction of the district courts shall not extend to causes arising out of injuries to or death of persons other than the master or members of the crew, for which compensation is provided by the workmen's compensation law of any State, District, Territory, or possession of the United States.' "This act also was, in Washington v. Dawson, supra, held unconstitutional by the Supreme Court. "The organic (Jones) act was passed in 1917, the same year in which Congress undertook to provide that compensation acts should, in the States, apply to such maritime laborers as those whose rights are now in question. It is not reasonable to suppose that the same Congress intended to take away from Porto Rico rights in the admiralty field which it sought to extend to the different States of the United States. Emphasis is lent to this conclusion by the fact that in 1922 it indicated in the most explicit language its purpose to allow such acts full scope, not only in the States of the United States, but in any 'District, Territory, or possession of the United States.' We do not regard either the act of 1917 or that of 1922 as a giant of new power to the Porto Rican Legislature; they merely show what otherwise in our view plainly appears, that Congress never intended, by the organic act or otherwise, to deprive the Porto Rican Legislature of power to extend workmen's compensation acts to maritime laborers. "Only the plainly expressed will of the United States is to prevail agianst the presumption of local control over matters of local concern. Compare Diaz v. Gonzalez, 261 U. S. 102, 43 S. Ct. 286, 67 L. Ed. 550; Balzac v. Porto Rico, 258 U. S. 298, 310, 42 S. Ct. 343, 66 L. Ed. 627; Fernandez v. Ayllon, 45 S. Ct. 52 69 L. Ed. November 17, 1924, No. 82 October term, 1924. "The result is that the decree below must be reversed and the bill dismissed with costs." CANAL ZONE The act of September 21, 1922, section 2 (42 Stat. 1005; U. S. C., title 48, secs. 1344, 1345), creates a district court for the Canal Zone and confers general jurisdiction in all cases of admiralty. It specifically provides with respect to admiralty practice and procedure as follows: "The jurisdiction in admiralty herein conferred upon the district judge and the district court shall be the same as is exercised by the United States district judges and the United States district courts, and the practice and procedure shall be the same as in the United States district courts." We do not consider reference to other insular possessions necessary. May we suggest for your consideration whether or not the proposed bill should be modified to meet the scope of the act regulating the Canal Zone? be accomplished by amending the bill to read: This could "Be it enacted, etc., That all cases coming within the admiralty jurisdiction of the courts of the Virgin Islands shall be determined in accordance with the general admiralty law of the United States of America, and the practice and procedure shall be the same as in the United States district courts." Respectfully, ROY ST. LEWIS, Assistant Attorney General. P. S. Since dictating the above, we have considered it proper to suggest another form of bill, which is: "Be it enacted, etc., That there be, and is, hereby conferred upon the judicial tribunals of the Virgin Islands jurisdiction in admiralty which shall be the same as is exercised by the United States district courts and the practice and procedure shall be the same as in the United States district courts. 72D CONGRESS 1st Session } SENATE REPORT No. 345 AIR MARKING OF GOVERNMENT BUILDINGS FEBRUARY 24 (calendar day, February 29), 1932.-Ordered to be printed Mr. BINGHAM, from the Committee on Commerce, submitted the following REPORT [To accompany S. 421] The Committee on Commerce, to whom was referred the bill (S. 421) to provide for the air marking of certain Government buildings, have considered the same and report thereon with an amendment, and, as so amended, recommend that the bill do pass. The amendment is as follows: Line 8, after the word "an" insert the word "essential". Your committee believe that the passage of this bill will cause no great additional expense to the Government and will promote safety in air transportation to a very considerable degree. There are many times when weather conditions are such that a pilot can only secure a momentary glimpse of the terrain below him, not sufficient to enable him to identify his exact location on the map. Air marking of public buildings would serve the same purpose as is now intended to be served by the name painted on light ships used for aids to ocean navigation. Hon. HIRAM W. JOHNSON, DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE, Chairman Committee on Commerce, United States Senate, Washington, D. C. MY DEAR SENATOR: Reference is made to S. 421, being a bill to provide for the air marking of certain Government buildings. For the information of your committee you are advised that the Director of the Bureau of the Budget has informed this department that the expenditures contemplated by this proposed legislation would not, at this time, be in accord with the financial program of the President. Very truly yours, |