condition prevail in your district in Texas so it might be a burden? Mr. BRYAN. The condition does not prevail as you describe it in the southern district of Texas. We discussed that and the matter of allocating the matter to commisisoners whose determination would be the proper one and one that would not affect the handling of their other work. Mr. MILLER. You are in Texas and I presume no one in the world is more anxious to get this settled and it would be your considered judgment that it would be better to have it handled that way? Mr. BRYAN. Most inclusively. I have not the faintest idea that if commissioners are chosen who they will be or where from but they will be there. It will not be an interference with their own business. This is not their function nor their occupational interest. It is something they are doing on the side. If you consult the wishes of the claimants it would be 100 percent to go to an established court and give their testimony and get a finding. Mr. MILLER. One further observation in conclusion. I would like to take this opportunity to congratulate the distinguished attorney from Texas for what I believe has been a very efficient presentation. Mr. LANE. I join with the gentleman from New York. Just before we conclude, Judge Bryan, would you tell me about the time when Congressman Thompson from Texas filed H. R. 4045 when you proposed to give consideration of this matter to the courts rather than delegating it to the President of the United States? Mr. BRYAN. Yes, sir; we did. As we talked about earlier, the commission use was an attempted deference to and reconciliation with the Department of Justice. As you may know, the first bill provided for the district court. Mr. Burger, who has appeared here for the Department of Justice, and Mr. Spangler thought that Congressman Thompson's approach to the district courts was not good. The Government considered they were not the best place to go to do it. I do not agree with it and I think I have as many knots on my head listening to cases in court-in the Federal court. They are neither for or against anyone. Generally, they represent a high order of individual who is trying to do his best. He is not against the Government nor for the plaintiff. I want to dissent on that theory on which it was proposed to have a Presidential commission. I cannot say it is wrong. I do believe the other has the greater advantages of established machinery and administrative capacity. You would have to organize a commission. May I close on the thought that my 31 years of practice have been wasted to me if, in handling multiple claims, you have to have as many people as Mr. Burger said to process these claims. These claims are in this status: I have not seen them except through FBI agents. They have a statement on file of the statistics showing those that have earning capacity, expectancy, education, background, accounting reports. You can take this and lay them beside the claims statement and someone can determine between the ranges of what the FBI and the claimant thinks they are worth and work it out very rapidly. It is preposterous and wholly apart from realism to talk about the number of men and lawyers needed. Mr. LANE. What was the procedure in Port Chicago? Mr. BRYAN. In that you had an originating investigation by the Navy Department and the Navy Department fixed them and turned them into the Congress. But there you had a Navy Department not afraid to admit its responsibility. We have never been able to meet that same attitude in the Army. It has tried to shirk it and prevent it. We ran into the greatest number of road blocks trying to get testimony and 10. minutes before they would come in they would declassify it. They were our enemy. They did not come in and face responsibility as the Navy did in the Port Chicago case. Mr. BOYLE. For the purpose of the record I would like to add my representation to the thoroughness of Mr. Austin Bryan. Mr. BRYAN. I would like to tell my grandchildren about it. Mr. BOYLE. I will again thank everybody including the good Congressman who knew so much about the factual situation in this case. So, while talking about individuals who have made their contribution I want to express my thanks to the Congressman who has done a good job of this. Mr. BRYAN. Since we are permitted a good deal of freedom here, may I say that last year's effort and the reports written and I am not at all an expert-yet, it represents the highest form in the review and the exhibits and all that goes into the reports of this committee. Mr. LANE. Thank you, Judge. Mr. THOMPSON. It is possible that this has all been touched upon. But in respect of the proposed turning over of the claims to the district court, the judges who would be involved-and I believe there are three of them-they were all sounded out as to their attitude; as to whether they would accept willingly the responsibility. It is my understanding that they said they would. They did not shrink from it at all. As we are already informed, they are not looking for the job but, if it is settled on to them, they will take care of it. Mr. BRYAN. Yes. Mr. THOMPSON. Since you are about to close let me express great appreciation of your patience and generosity in holding this hearing and staying with it so long. Mr. LANE. Thank you, Congressman Thompson. A letter addressed "Hon. Emanuel Celler, chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary" under date of May 9, 1955, will be inserted in the record at this point. (The letter is as follows:) Hon. EMANUEL CELLER, Chairman, Committee on the Judiciary, DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY, Washington, D. C., May 9, 1955. House of Representatives. DEAR MR. CELLER: Reference is made to your letter of April 20, 1955, relative to the hearings on H. R. 4045, 84th Congress, a bill to provide for settlement of claims for damages resulting from the disaster which occurred at Texas City, Tex., on April 16 and 17, 1947, presently scheduled for May 11, 1955, before Subcommittee No. 2 of the Committee on the Judiciary, House of Representatives, and the advisability of having a representative present the views of the Department of the Army at such hearings. The Secretary of Defense has been asked to report the views of the Department of Defense on the bill and has delegated the responsibility therefor to the Department of the Army. The Army report is in the process of being coordinated within the Department of Defense and will be presented to the committee prior to the hearings. Additionally, the Department of the Army, on behalf of the Department of Defense, submitted a very lengthy report on H. R. 8572, 83d Congress, a similar bill. That report sets out in detail the facts surrounding the events of April 16 and 17 at Texas City, and is set forth in full on pages 56 to 70 of the report of the Committee of the Judiciary, House of Representatives, to accompany H. R. 9785, 83d Congress. This report, together with that which will be submitted to the committee on H. R. 4045, 84th Congress, elaborately explains the position of the Department of Defense on the bill, and it does not appear that any additional information of value to the committee would be presented by having a witness testify at the hearings. Accordingly, in the absence of an indication that the committee desires the presence of a witness, the Department of the Army does not plan to present any testimony over and above the views reflected in the above-mentioned reports. Sincerely yours, The committee will go into executive session. ROBERT T. STEVENS, (Whereupon the hearing was adjourned and the committee went into executive session.) TEXAS CITY CLAIMS ACT WEDNESDAY, JUNE 8, 1955 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, SUBCOMMITTEE No. 2 OF THE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE, Washington, D. C. The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 9:45 a. m., in room 325, Old House Office Building, Hon. Thomas J. Lane, chairman of the subcommittee, presiding. Present: Representatives Thomas J. Lane, E. L. Forrester, Chauncey W. Reed, Usher L. Burdick, and DeWitt S. Hyde. Also present: Cyril F. Brickfield, counsel, and Walter E. Lee, legislative assistant. Mr. LANE. The committee will please be in order. The committee will consider this morning the bill H. R. 4045, Texas City claims bill. This bill was heard at some length some time ago, but we have a request from the Assistant Attorney General, Warren Burger, that they be given an opportunity to testify further. He is represented here this morning by Mr. Morton Liftin, attorney, Department of Justice. And, in all fairness to the parties and the committee, who wants to receive all the information that might be helpful, and in fairness to the members of the subcommittee, we decided to hear them on this very important bill. The first witness this morning will be Attorney Morton Liftin, from the Department of Justice. STATEMENT OF MORTON LIFTIN, ATTORNEY, DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE-Continued Mr. LIFTIN. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee. Mr. BRICKFIELD. Mr. Chairman, may we make this letter from Mr. Warren E. Burger, Assistant Attorney General, a part of the record? Mr. LANE. Without objection, the letter will be made a part of the record. (The letter referred to follows:) Re H. R. 4045, Texas City Claims Act. Hon. THOMAS J. LANE, DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D. C. May 19, 1955. Chairman, Subcommittee No. 2, Committee on the Judiciary, House of Representatives, Washington, D. C. MY DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: I want to thank you for affording me the opportunity of testifying before your subcommittee on the above measure. In connection with my testimony, I would like to restate to you my impression that the subcommittee intended to consider the proposed legislation primarily as a disaster relief 73 measure and as a pure gratuity. My testimony and Mr. Liftin's related to consideration of the bill in this limited context. From the testimony of others and the discussion between members of the subcommittee and witnesses, it appeared that consideration was being given, by some members of the subcommittee at least, to the question of whether the Texas City disaster resulted from the negligence of the Government. I will not, of course, express any opinion as to the subcommittee's undertaking to sit as a judicial or quasi-judicial body, nor the practicability of the subcommittee's attempting to resolve technical and complicated factual issues with respect to which nearly 60,000 pages of evidence were taken in the trial. In view of the testimony that has already been received, however, I should like an opportunity to testify further that the extravagant charges and highly inaccurate statements by other witnesses of negligence on the part of the Government are contradicted by the overwhelming weight of evidence of record. We would like to emphasize again that no court except the trial court held that the Government was guilty of negligence. If any weight whatever is to be given for any purpose to the suggestions of counsel for insurance companies and other claimants, we would like to have an opportunity to point out factual material in the record which refutes the claims of negligence on the part of the Government. Thank you again for the opportunity to present our views on this matter. Yours very truly, WARREN E. BURGER, Assistant Attorney General. Mr. LANE. Mr. Liftin, we are very glad to have you back with us; you are always welcome to come before the committee. Mr. LIFTIN. Thank you. Mr. LANE. We appreciate your coming here this morning. Mr. LIFTIN. We appreciate the opportunity, Mr. Chairman, of presenting further testimony, because, as Mr. Burger indicated throughout the last hearings before the committee, it was our view that the subcommittee was considering a relief bill and that it was not going into the question of negligence. But for several hours, I think it was until around 6 o'clock in the evening, the testimony of one side was heard with respect to negligence on the part of the Government, and was presented largely in support of the insurance company claims for reimbursement of their subrogated claims. The Department's view of the situation is somewhat different from that presented. The record of the case in the trial is very extensive, and demonstrated that the Government was not negligent and that legislation should not be predicated upon the assumption of a finding of negligence. Mr. LANE. Is it your understanding that under this bill we are admitting negligence? Mr. LIFTIN. The bill in its present form, and the view presented by Mr. Bryan in support of the bill, would have the insurance companies the principal beneficiary of this legislation, and that on the theory that the Government was negligent, and therefore, should reimburse the insurance companies for the loss. We believe that the Government was not negligent and the insurance company should not be reimbursed. Mr. FORRESTER. May I interrupt for a question? Mr. LANE. Yes, Mr. Forrester. Mr. FORRESTER. Do I understand the gentleman to say--and I am not familiar with the testimony in this case-but do I understand the gentleman to say that the insurance companies are the principal beneficiaries in this matter? Mr. LIFTIN. That is our view of it. Before the Senate committee there was testimony that the Government has constantly overesti |