any authority for the appointment of a special judge in those Territories in the above-mentioned contingencies. It appears desirable that provision be made for the appointment of a special judge to serve when needed in the District Court of the Virgin Islands. Otherwise, whenever the judge is absent from the islands, or happens to be ill, or is disqualified in a specific case, there is no one who can perform his duties. I enclose herewith a bill to effectuate the foregoing recommendation. Sincerely yours, HOMER CUMMINGS, In compliance with 2 (a) of rule 13, existing law is printed in roman with matter proposed to be inserted printed in italics: In SEC. 26. The President shall, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, appoint a judge and a district attorney for the District Court of the Virgin Islands who shall hold office for the term of four years and until their successors are chosen and qualified unless sooner removed by the President for cause. case of the absence, disability, or disqualification of such judge, the President is authorized to appoint a special judge to discharge the duties of such judge only until the termination of such absence, disability, or disqualification; and the special judge so appointed shall be authorized and empowered to perform the duties of such office during such periods and shall receive compensation at the same rate, for the period of time actually served, and the same allowances for expenses and transportation as are paid and allowed the judge of said court. The Attorney General shall appoint and fix the compensation of all other officers necessary for the transaction of the business of the district court, and the compensation of the judge of the district court, and of the district attorney, and the administrative expenses of such court shall be paid from appropriations made for the Department of Justice. The duties of such officers shall be prescribed by law or ordinance and by order of the Attorney General not inconsistent therewith: Provided, That the Governor may call upon the district attorney to advise him upon any legal questions concerning the administration of the Government of the Virgin Islands. о FALSE CLAIMS FOR THE LOSS OF INSURED MAIL MATTER JULY 17, 1939.-Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union and ordered to be printed Mr. CELLER, from the Committee on the Judiciary, submitted the following REPORT [To accompany S. 185] The Committee on the Judiciary, to whom was referred the bill (S. 185) to amend the section 224 of the Criminal Code so as to penalize the making of false claims for the loss of insured mail matter, after consideration, report the same favorably to the House with the recommendation that the bill do pass. The present law making it a criminal offense to make a false claim for the loss of registered mail does not cover false claims for insured mail. The reported bill extends the statute penalizing the making of false claims for the loss of registered mail to include as well the making of false claims for insured mail. The Attorney General recommended this proposed legislation in a communication which is attached hereto. The Senate added an amendment to the bill as proposed by the Department of Justice to provide that only a fine and not imprisonment may be imposed as punishment if the false claim is for an amount less than $100. Hon. WILLIAM B. BANKHEAD, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL, The Speaker, House of Representatives, Washington, D. C. MY DEAR MR. SPEAKER: Section 224 of the Criminal Code, enacted in 1909, penalizes the making of false claims for the loss of registered mail matter (act of March 4, 1909, 35 Stat. 1133; U. S. C., title 18, sec. 354). Subsequently, the Post Office Department was authorized to provide for the insurance of articles sent by fourth class or third class mail (sec. 8 of the act of August 24, 1912; 37 Stat. 558; U. S. C., title 39, sec. 244). It appears desirable, therefore, to bring false claims for the loss of insured mail matter within the scope of section 224 of the Criminal Code. Accordingly, I enclose herewith a bill which has been drafted in this Department at the suggestion of the Postmaster General, to effectuate this purpose and I recommend its enactment. Sincerely yours, Enclosure No. 18824. HOMER CUMMINGS, In compliance with 2 (a) of rule 13, existing law is printed below in roman with matter proposed to be added printed in italics. SEC. 224. Whoever shall make, allege, or present, or cause to be made, alleged, or presented, or assist, aid, or abet in making, alleging, or presenting, any claim or application for indemnity for the loss of any registered or insured letter, parcel, package, or other article or matter, or the contents thereof, knowing such claim or application to be false, fictitious, or fraudulent; or whoever for the purpose of obtaining or aiding to obtain the payment or approval of any such claim or application, shall make or use, or cause to be made or used, any false statement, certificate, affidavit, or deposition; or whoever shall knowingly and willfully misrepresent, or misstate, or, for the purpose aforesaid, shall knowingly and willfully conceal any material fact or circumstance in respect of any such claim or application for indemnity, shall be fined not more than $500 or imprisoned not more than one year, or both, except in cases where the amount of such claim or application for indemnity is less than $100 there may be imposed a fine only.” О TRAVEL AND SUBSISTENCE EXPENSES OF JUDGES JULY 17, 1939.-Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union and ordered to be printed Mr. CELLER, from the Committee on the Judiciary, submitted the following REPORT [To accompany H. R. 7015] The Committee on the Judiciary, to whom was referred the bill (H. R. 7015) to reenact section 259 of the Judicial Code relating to the traveling and subsistence expenses of circuit and district judges, after consideration, report the same favorably to the House with the recommendation that the bill do pass. The Comptroller General, in a ruling made in response to a request from the Attorney General, held that section 803 of the Economy Act of June 30, 1932, was applicable to all appropriations available for the fiscal year 1933; thus Federal judges on and after July 1, 1932, could be reimbursed for subsistence expense only upon a per diem basis of not to exceed $5 a day. Under the act of March 3, 1911, section 259 of the Judicial Code, a Federal judge was allowed reasonable expenses not to exceed $10 per day actually incurred for maintenance consequent upon his holding court at a place other than in the district in which he resides. The proposed bill reenacts section 259 of the Judicial Code and will permit Federal judges designated and required under the provision of the Judicial Code to hold court in other districts of the circuit or adjoining, or other circuits, to be reimbursed for their reasonable and actual living expense, but not to exceed $10 per day. It is quite apparent that visiting judges holding court in the larger cities are unable to secure living accommodations to include room and meals at $5 per day. The present law imposes an expense burden upon these judges which is unfair and was not intended when the Judicial Code was adopted. |