In regard to such leases, Section 204(b) of the act provides:

In any case in which a landlord and tenant, on or before December 31, 1947, voluntarily enter into a valid written lease in good faith with respect to any housing accommodations for which a maximum rent is in effect under this section and such lease takes effect after the effective date of this title and expires on or after December 31, 1948, and if a true and duly executed copy of such lease is filed, within fifteen days after the date of execution of such lease, with the Housing Expediter, the maximum rent for such housing accommodations shall be, as of the date such lease takes effect, that which is mutually agreed between the landlord and tenant in such lease if it does not represent an increase of more than 15 per centum over the maximum rent which would otherwise apply under this

section.

It is felt that where a landlord asks a tenant to enter into such a lease, the real problem is a practical one: i.e. is it advantageous for the tenant to pay increased rent considering all the circumstances involved. Each case must, of course, be decided on its own merits, and calls for exercise of individual personal judgment based on many factors:

a. A guess as to how long rent control will be available after March 1947.

(Under present legislature controls cease on 1 March 1947 but Congress may extend them).

b. An estimate as to whether the landlord can or will evict the tenant if he does not sign the new lease. (A landlord, or new purchaser can now evict under provisions of local law, if he wishes possession of the property for his immediate and personal use as housing accom

modations without waiting for periods ranging up to six months as required under the former federal legislation.) Whether other property is available for rent in the vicinity.

C.

d. How long before the Serviceman will be transferred from the area, and like

matters.

There are, however, some cases where the tenant will find it advantageous to protect himself with a lease, even though the rent is increased. For example, a Navy man expecting to remain in a crowded area for two years who occupies premises as a month-tomonth tenant, knowing his landlord needs the property for his own use, might find it a definite advantage to get a lease for two years, especially if the landlord offered such additional inducements for the increased rental as repairing or redecorating the property or making certain other de sirable improvements.

Whenever such leases are entered into, it is strongly recommended that Service personnel discuss this problem with their legal assistance officer, so that all protection possible can be afforded to them. In many instances it will be possible to obtain alteration of burdensome clauses in leases, and wherever possible a so-called military "escape" clause should be included, so that the service family may terminate the lease without penalty when transferred to other areas.

A good example of a military "escape" clause is the following which, incidentally, can be modified with proper legal advice to fit other circumstances:

"Lessee is at present on active duty as a Commander in the U. S. Navy at the Navy Department, Washington, D. C. The parties hereto agree that in the event the lessee is released from active duty or officially ordered by the Navy Department to duty outside of Washington and the lessor is duly notified thereof in writing by lessee, then and in that event this lease shall cease and terminate thirty (30) days after the date of delivery of such notice to lessor. The mailing of such notice to the lessor at his last known address shall be deemed delivery to him of such notice."

FORTHCOMING CMO's

The following opinions and holdings of the JAG are noted briefly here in advance of publication. Until officially published in Court Martial Orders they may not be cited in any judicial proceeding.

Among the opinions rendered by the Judge Advocate General is one 'involving the question of whether the salary of a civilian employee of a cooperative cafeteria located at a naval air station could be garnished by a judgment creditor. In the opinion, it was pointed out that as some of the incidental questions presented have not been the subject of court decision, the Judge Advocate General's opinion should be considered as of an advisory nature only.

In view of the rule that the salary of an employee of the United States can not be garnished while the salary is part of the funds of the United States, the first question was considered to be whether or not the employee of the cafeteria was an employee of the United States. On the basis of the facts, which among others, indicated that the cafeteria was operated by a board, in part elected and in part appointed by commanding officer, and that it did not utilize any appropriated funds for salaries or otherwise, it is concluded that the employee was not an employee of the United States. The second question was considered to be based on the principle that as the rule against garnishments is directed against interference with the functions of the Government, the attempted garnishment must fail if, first, Government functions are involved and, second, the proposed action would “interfere" with them. It was concluded that the first of these questions need not be answered, because even if the Cooperative Association were held to be an instrumentality of the Government, the garnishment proceedings would not be such an interference with their functions as to invoke the rule. The courts have not passed upon this specific issue. The opinion reaches this conclusion upon the basis of various cases which indicate the limitations on the extension of the Government's immunity from suit to its instrumentalities.

The right of an officer to reimbursement

for expenses incurred for civilian medical care and hospitalization while on authorized leave is considered in another opinion. The officer involved had undergone an appendectomy which was performed by naval medical authorities. Subsequently, he was granted leave in excess of 24 hours, and while on leave entered a civilian hospital because of an abdominal abscess, which was directly related to the previous operation.

On the basis of sec. 1586, R.S., which states, in effect, that medical expenses incurred by an officer will not be allowed except if they are incurred while the officer is on duty; an opinion of the Comptroller General that an officer on leave of absence is not on duty within the meaning of the statute (7 Comp. Gen. 314); and a prior opinion of the Judge Advocate General that an officer while on leave in excess of 24 hours is not on duty within the meaning of the statute, it is held that the officer concerned was not entitled to reimbursement. In the course of the opinion it is pointed out that BuPers Cir. Ltr. 193-46 stating, in effect, that personnel who are hospitalized while on leave revert to a duty status as of the date of admission to the hospital, was a determination of duty status for the purpose of computing leave within the meaning of the Armed Forces Leave Act and not a determination of the question involved in the opinion.

The best evidence rule was involved in a recent Military Law decision concerning a court martial for embezzlement. The judge advocate, for the purpose of proving the accused's alleged receipt of the funds and the ensuing shortage in his accounts, introduced a statement of the discrepancies, compiled by a board of investigation, which among other details, mentioned certain written receipts purportedly signed by the accused objected to both the introduction of the statement and the oral testimony on the grounds that the statement was hearsay, and that as the receipts were the best evidence they should be introduced and the testimony ruled inadmissible. The accused was overruled in both instances and was convicted. In view of the fact that the receipts were not accounted for, the Judge Advocate General held that the court was in error in admitting the secondary evidence.

Not so long ago possession of legal training was no particular asset to a Reserve officer on active duty in the Navy. The phrase "tainted with the Law" occasionally was heard, and the assortment of miscellaneous, non-legal jobs assigned lawyers was impressively large. Of the twelve- thousand-or-so lawyers who served as Reserve officers in World War II, roughly only ten per cent filled billets which were exclusively legal in character. Retrospect has shown how well the lawyers acquitted themselves in their miscellaneous tasks, as well as in the performance of legal duties, so that today the value of the lawyers to the Navy is well-established. In fact, the need of the Navy today for experienced lawyers appears to be increasing daily, a valuable clue to future trends. The attractions of these officers who have served so well include not only their potential as officers in future wars, but also their position as natural leaders in their own community- and political-affairs.

In con sequence of this growing need the Navy has recognized the necessity for a strong and active Legal Component of the Volunteer Naval Reserve. While the component itself has been duly authorized, and in some Naval Districts the District Legal Officers have begun the physical building of such local organizations, the years since the war have been devoted rather more to the preparation of overall plans than to the actual implementation of basic concepts with details. The problem is now "before the house", however, and Reserve lawyers who are interested in associating themselves with a Volunteer Legal Reserve can expect early developments along the line of a definite program of procurement, training and promotion.

In order to insure that a program is adopted which will meet the ideas of the majority of Reserve lawyers, as well as fulfill the needs and requirements of the Navy, there have been ordered to Washington for TAD in the JAG Office two Reserve officers who have been active on the West Coast in the organization of Legal Reserve Units.

Comdr. Elwood J Wilson, on duty at the Twelfth Naval District Legal Office was our first visitor, and he made material contribution to a well-reasoned basic organization plan for the Legal Reserve. Currently at work on the problem of implementing, the basic plan is Comdr. S. H. School field, attached to the Eleventh Naval District Legal Office.

It was anticipated that the basic plan and the implementation of it would be farenough along on their way to approval to be published in this issue of the JAG JOURNAL, but it did not work out that way. Along with the detemination of the Planning and Organization Counsel, Captain Lionel L. Rowe, USN, that any plan submitted must offer something worth-while, it must be considered that the Navy is still the Navy, composed of many Bureaus and Offices, and that plans conceived in this Office, and implemented here, must have not only the approval of the JAG but that of the Chief of the Bureau of Personnel, Chief of Naval Operations, and, ultimately if not directly, of the Secretary of the Navy.

What is being attempted, by way of implementation, is a program of training which will set out definite requirements for promotion and give to those who are interested in that phase the means, through a supervised training program, of attaining higher rank. Then too, the type of training to be followed at meetings is up for consideration, since it is hardly appropriate to follow the training directives for the Organized Reserve Units, unless you can bring yourselves to something like "shoulder pencils--- MARCH!". The Reserve lawyer who practices his profession is self-trained by his profession, so that only training in application of basic skill to Naval problems need be seriously considered. So much c what the Legal Reserves will accomplish depends on what is done at their periodic meetings that haste is preparing and imposing a training program definitely is NOT indicated.

It is realized that the Legal Reserves have been waiting for a long time for this

WILLS Annotated Forms Of Wills, by Saul Gordon. Prentice-Hall, N. Y., 1947. $10.00 How To Make A Will, by Parnell Callahan; (Legal Almanac Series). Oceana Publications, N.Y., 1947. $1.00. ADMINISTRATIVE LAW The Administrative Power Of Investigation. 56 Yale Law Journal 1111-1154 (August, 1947). CONSTITUTIONAL LAW Constitutional Prohibition Of Ex-post-facto Laws. 14 University of Chicago Law Review 539-566 (June 1947). CRIMINAL LAW - Limitations On Right To Comment Upon Failure Of Accused To Testify. 14 Current Legal Thought 364-365 (October, 1947).

Mental Disorder Affecting The Degree Of A Crime. 56 Yale Law Journal 959-981 (June, 1947).

EVIDENCE Confessions: Coerced Confession May Be Suppressed Before Indictment. In re Fried. 14 California Law Review 681685 (June, 1947).

Search and Seizure: Effect of the fourth amendment upon Admissibility Of Evidence Seized During Lawful Arrest For Unrelated Crime. 96 University of Pennsylvania Law Review 128-130 (November 1947).

INTERNATIONAL LAW AND AFFAIRS Will the Nuremberg Trial Constitute A Precedent? 1 International Law Quarterly 153-171, (Summer, 1947).

MARITIME LAW - Effect Of Radar On The International Rules Of The Road. 32 Cornell Law Quarterly 570-579, (June, 1947). MILITARY LAW Civil Court's Refusal To Review Double Jeopardy Questions In Court Martial. 96 University of Pennsylvania Law Review 117-119 (November, 1947). Snedeker, Col. James, U.S. M. C. Book review of Navy Trials Digest by Bishop and Brandenburg. 73 U. S. Naval Institute Proceedings 1248-1249 (October. 1947).

Colclough, Rear Admiral O.S., U.S.N. Naval Justice, 38 Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology 198-205 (September-October 1947).