It is very similar to the Japanese fishermen case. have sued and collected under the Tort Claims Act. they should be compensated.

They could not
But it was felt

The attorney fee question, and then I will yield. There is a question if you allow 15-percent attorney fees and if one man on a $40 million claim would receive that. That is a maximum attorney fee which could or could not be allowed. It is not paid in addition to the amount awarded the individual or company. It comes out of the claimant's part and where one lawyer had, say $40 million, it is entirely possible he would not get the entire 15 percent.

On the other hand where you have lawyers who may represent one person, and there has been a tremendous amount of work done on these claims themselves, it is not an ordinary type of claim. There has been a tremendous amount of investigation work and hearings and I believe that the attorneys should be compensated for their time because that is the only way these people could present their claims to this body.

Mr. LANE. Do you think there should be a limitation of 15 percent as an attorney's fee?

Mr. MARKWELL. I do.

Mr. MILLER. And do you think there should be a limitation on the amount any attorney should get?

Mr. MARKWELL. I think that should be left to the discretion of the Commissioner or whoever assesses damage. When it is a claim of $20,000 if it appears perhaps that the lawyer interested in the case has not done too much then I think there should be a discretion in cutting his fee down.

Mr. LANE. Do you think there should be a limit on the subrogation claims, too?

Mr. MARKWELL. I will be frank with you. It puts me in a rather embarrassing position.

Mr. LANE. I withdraw the question.

Mr. BOYLE. I would like to ask counsel how many children are there in this situation? How many children represented in that 8,500? Mr. MARKWELL. I would say a good number were children.

Mr. BOYLE. What is a good number.

Mr. MARKWELL. That I would hesitate to try to approximate?
Mr. BOYLE. I am not going to tie you down.

Mr. MARKWELL. I would rather not.

Mr. BOYLE. How many would your judgment be without holding you to any figure?

Mr. MARKWELL. I would rather restrict it to my clients. Out of 108 killed and 42 injured I probably represent-I just could not break it down-but I would think there would be at least 20 or 25.

Mr. BOYLE. These individuals are not precluded from filing suit, say, for instance, against the Texas City Terminal Railway Co.? Mr. MARKWELL. You mean the children? The 20 or 25 children. Under the statute of limitations it does not run.

Mr. BOYLE. Until they get to 21 and a knowledge of their rights. So all the children involved here with a few exceptions can go back

to court.

Mr. MARKWELL. Some have become adults since the inception of these proceedings. It has been 8 years and actually the children

I represented at that time were around 15 or 16. They were highschool students, some of them, and they were just looking at the fire as any other children would. They have reached adulthood and, as far as initiating suits for children at this late date, if I thought we could have recovered against the Texas City Terminal I would have done so.

Mr. BOYLE. I have not tried a negligence case but from the testimony on page 9 of this report, the vice president of the Texas City Railway Co. himself admits his operation was negligent. He testified these bags were, as early as June 4, scorched to the breaking point.

Mr. MARKWELL. They were shipped and when unloaded from the cars they were scorched and then he called on the Government-a representative of the Ordnance Department.

Mr. BOYLE. That does not exonerate him from the need of exercising due care. He certainly did not do it in that situation. From his testimony alone it seems to me there is a lot of negligence on the part of that warehouse.

Mr. MARKWELL. He could see that the stuff was hot and the bags would smell. There had been no explosion. He called on the Government to see if this was the explosive product because many products will burn and not explode and he was assured it was not explosive and there was nothing on the labels to change his mind.

That is a peculiar attitude of the Department of Justice. They took the attitude that the Government did not know this was dangerous and in the next breath they say the people who operated the steamships and terminals could have known that and taken precautions. If the manufacturer himself says he does not know he is making a dangerous product, how in the world could innocent third persons who came in contact with the mislabeled product know?

Mr. LANE. Mr. Markwell, when proceedings were started as a test case by the hearings here, wasn't it agreed upon by all of the other attorneys representing all the other claims at that time that their only remedy was a suit against the United States? Had they taken into consideration, as Congressman Boyle has pointed out, whether or not there was negligence or other tort feasors? Had not all these attorneys gone into that matter before this one case was brought?

Mr. MARKWELL. That was the concensus of opinion. We went back to the McPherson v. Buick automobile case where the car was manufactured with a defective wheel and it was held the Buick Co. was responsible for putting a dangerous article into operation. We thought this was a dangerous product handled by the Government, placed in the hands of the people who had no warning and no reason to be explosive and it goes back to the case of manufacturer's liability and shipper's, maybe. And it was our opinion that that was where the responsibility lay.

Mr. BRICKFIELD. Mr. Markwell, would you tell the committee about this program under which this fertilizer was manufactured and how the Government brought in independent companies which manufactured this product at the direction of the Government and under a contract with the Government so the committee will know in detail the procedure adopted for the ammonium nitrate program.

Mr. MARKWELL. If it is agreeable--I do not want to take all of Mr. Bryan's time. We agreed he would go into that if it were perfectly

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.
Judge ROBINSON. Yes, sir.

(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?
Judge ROBINSON. No. I come from Galveston.

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.