without regard to the civil-service law or the Classification Act of 1923, as amended." The reasons for the inclusion of this provision are simply that it is anticipated that this work will require only 3 years and that some of the historical experts will be employed for even shorter periods. The National Historical Publications Commission believes that it will be impossible to get competent historical experts especially informed in this field for such short-time employment under the civil-service regulations. It will be necessary, moreover, to employ people to work for periods of time in distant libraries, and for this work part-time arrangements with professors of history in local institutions will be much more economical than sending out regular full-time employees from a Washington office.

The law authorizing the work of the Department of State on the Territorial Papers contains a similar provision and I understand that the Department feels that this provision has made for efficiency and economy in the work.

That the material mentioned above should be compiled and issued as a Government publication is the first and only recommendation made thus far to the Congress by the National Historical Publications Commission. This Commission, which was created by The National Archives Act (48 Stat. 1122-1124) to "make plans, estimates, and recommendations for such historical works and collections of sources as seem appropriate for publication and/or otherwise recording at the public expense," consists of the Archivist of the United States, who is its chairman; the Historical Adviser of the Department of State; the Chief of the Historical Section of the War Department General Staff; the Superintendent of Naval Records in the Navy Department; the Chief of the Division of Manuscripts of the Library of Congress; and two members of the American Historical Association, appointed by the president thereof.

At the first meeting of the Commission, held on January 29, 1935, there was laid before it a resolution of the Council of the American Historical Association which requested that early consideration be given to a program for the publication of documentary material relating to the history of the Constitution of the United States. A comprehensive survey of the original material, published or unpublished, relating to the history of the Constitution was made for the Commission by its secretary; this survey disclosed that the original materials relating to the framing of the Constitution, including the reports of the Philadelphia Convention of 1787, are easily accessible to students in published form, but that only a small portion of the original materials relating to the ratification of the Constitution and the proposal and ratification of the first 10 amendments have been collected, edited, and published so as to serve the purpose of students of American constitutional history.

After careful study of the results of this survey, the Commission, on February 21, 1936, unanimously approved a recommendation "that Congress authorize and direct the collection, copying, and editing, under the supervision of the National Historical Publications Commission, and the issuance as a Government publication of such papers, documents, and other original materials relating to the ratification of the Constitution of the United States and the first 10 amendments thereto as in the opinion of the said National Historical Publications Commission are appropriate for inclusion in such a publication." In

this recommendation, which was transmitted to the Congress on March 17, 1936, by the Archivist of the United States, in accordance with the provisions of section 9 of the National Archives Act, the Commission explained the need for the proposed publication and outlined plans for it as follows:

Of original material on ratification, the articles by Madison, Hamilton, and Jay, known as the Federalist are available in many editions, some of which are well edited; and some of the other newspaper essays and pamphlets have been assembled and reprinted in limited editions now out of print. Some of the debates in the State conventions were published in 1827 in a work known as Elliot's Debates, but the editing was crudely done and the texts are unreliable. The second edition of this work (1836) was somewhat enlarged, but there was no improvement in the editing and additional records of debates have since come to light.

The Commission believes that a thorough search of contemporary newspapers, magazines, and pamphlets; of published and unpublished State archives; and of published and unpublished correspondence of the period would disclose a large amount of material that would shed new light on the ratification of the Constitution. The assembling and publication of this material, together with the pertinent material in Elliot's Debates, all taken from the original sources and edited in accordance with the canons of modern historical scholarship, would be a valuable service to scholars, lawyers, teachers, and the public generally and would promote a more adequate comprehension of the significance of the Constitution on the part of the American people.

The importance of the work of the Federal Convention in framing the Constitution is generally recognized; it is not so well understood, however, that the Convention did not and could not adopt the Constitution in the sense of giving it legal validity. That was done by the people of the several States acting through their elected representatives in the State conventions, and, without the ratifications by these conventions, the work of the Federal Convention would have been in vain. It is obviously important, therefore, in assessing the significance of the Constitution, to know as fully as possible what the people who were responsible for its ratification understood it to mean, why they ratified it, and what forces and issues were involved in the struggle over ratification.

On the basis of the preliminary survey the Commission estimates that six volumes with a total of about 4,000 pages would be needed for the publication of the pertinent original material on the ratification of the Constitution and the first 10 amendments. It thinks that the material on the first 10 amendments should be included because they were proposed in principle by several of the conventions in their documents of ratification, it was understood while the process of ratification was under way that such amendments would be adopted, and they are, therefore, an integral part of the Constitution as originally agreed upon. It would not be necessary, as a rule, to reprint in the proposed work material, such as the Federalist, already conveniently available in print in well-edited form. References to such material should be included, however, in the appropriate places; and the last volume should contain a list of all pertinent documents, whether or not included in the work; a comprehensive bibliography of books, pamphlets, articles, and collections of manuscript material relating to the ratification of the Constitution and the first 10 amendments; and an analytical index to the entire work.

The letter of the Archivist transmitting the recommendations of the Commission stated that he was "advised by the Acting Director of the Bureau of the Budget that the attached report would not be in conflict with the program of the President."

A hearing on this measure was held by the Committee on the Library on March 22, 1939. Various members of the National Historical Publications Commission appeared to recommend the measure, and information was presented to show that the proposal has been endorsed by a considerable number of national and local organizations concerned with historical, legal, library, and archival matters and by many individual historians, lawyers, librarians, and other interested individuals. A list of 110 endorsers representing 38 H. Repts., 76-1, vol. 5-27

different States and some of the endorsements appear in the published hearing.

The Committee on the Library feels that there is no conflict between the project outlined by H. R. 5024 and any other printing of material on this subject. In order to ascertain the sentiments of the historical societies, librarians, lawyers, and other individuals who had endorsed the National Historical Publications Commission project, a letter asking the frank opinion on this matter was addressed by the committee to eminent authorities.

From the replies received, it appears that most of those consulted are of the opinion that the proposed publication of the National Historical Publications Commission should be carried through regardless of any other publication issued, or contemplated at the present time, because of the value to students of such compilation. Therefore, the committee urges that the bill do pass.

O

1st Session

No. 998

CHARLES H. LEGAY

JUNE 29, 1939.-Committed to the Committee of the Whole House and ordered to be printed

Mr. SMITH of Connecticut, from the Committee on Military Affairs, submitted the following

REPORT

[To accompany H. R. 3931]

The Committee on Military Affairs, to whom was referred the bill (H. R. 3931) for the relief of Charles H. LeGay, having considered the same, submit the following report thereon with the recommendation that it do pass.

The purpose of this bill is to authorize the Secretary of War to reenlist in the United States Army Charles H. LeGay, formerly of the Medical Department at Fort McIntosh, Tex.

The records of the War Department disclose that Charles H. LeGay, while serving in the Medical Department at Fort McIntosh was tried in civil court and convicted of "failure to stop and render aid," and was sentenced to confinement in the county jail for a period of 1 year He served 9 months of the sentence and upon release was pardoned by the Governor of Texas on May 10, 1937. Following his conviction and sentence to confinement by the civil authorities LeGay was not discharged from the military service and he returned to his regular station at Fort McIntosh, Tex., upon his release from confinement. On August 14, 1937, Private LeĜay in a letter to The Adjutant General, stated that he was extremely desirous of reenlisting and requested that congressional relief be obtained for that purpose. This letter was forwarded with favorable recommendations by the post surgeon at Fort McIntosh and the commanding officer of that post, pointing out that LeGay had had over 7 years' service, was honest, faithful, and industrious, thoroughly trained in the functions of the Medical Department, and highly efficient in the performance of those duties.

Section 1118, Revised Statutes, as amended by the act of February 27, 1877 (19 Stat. 242; U. S. C. 10:622) which reads in part that

no person who has been convicted of a felony shall be enlisted in the Military Service."

Attached hereto and made a part of this report is a letter from the War Department.

WAR DEPARTMENT, Washington, March 13, 1939.

Hon. ANDREW J. MAY,

Chairman, Committee on Military Affairs,

House of Representatives.

DEAR MR. MAY: Further reference is made to your letter of February 15, requesting report on H. R. 3931, Seventy-sixth Congress, first session, a bill for the relief of Charles H. LeGay, Army serial No. 6130036.

The provisions of the bill are identical with those of H. R. 9011, introduced in the Seventy-fifth Congress, in behalf of Charles H. LeGay, upon which the War Department submitted a report on March 28, 1938. Following are the factors involved in the case as set forth in that report.

"The pertinent provision of law is found in section 1118, Revised Statutes, as amended by the act of February 27, 1877 (19 Stat. 242; U. S. C. 10:622), which reads in part that "* * * no person who has been convicted of a felony shall be enlisted in the military service.'

"The Attorney General of the United States has rendered an opinion to the effect 'that a person who has been convicted of a felony is ineligible for enlistment in the military service, under the statutory provision herein considered, although pardoned by the President or by the governor of a State.'

"Examination of the enclosed statement of service of Charles H. LeGay, Army serial No. 6130036, prepared in the office of The Adjutant General, discloses that while serving in the Medical Department at Fort McIntosh, Tex., he was tried in a civil court, convicted of "Failure to stop and render aid," and was sentenced to confinement in the county jail for a period of 1 year. He served 9 months of the sentence and upon release was pardoned by the Governor of Texas on May 10, 1937.

"Following his conviction and sentence to confinement by the civil authorities LeGay was not discharged from the military service and he returned to his regular station at Fort McIntosh, Tex., upon his release from confinement. On August 14, 1937, Private LeGay in a letter to The Adjutant General, stated that he was extremely desirous of reenlisting and requested that congressional relief be obtained for that purpose. This letter was forwarded with favorable recommendations by the post surgeon at Fort McIntosh and the commanding officer of that post, pointing out that LeGay had had over 7 years' service, was honest, faithful, and industrious, thoroughly trained in the functions of the Medical Department, and highly efficient in the performance of those duties.

There is enclosed herewith a photostatic copy of a statement prepared by Mr. M. J. Raymond of the law firm of Raymond, Algee, and Alvarado, of Laredo, Tex. Mr. Raymond acted as defense counsel for LeGay in this trial. In the attached statement he sets forth and analyzes the testimony of witnesses in the case and adds an opinion and recommendation bearing on it.

"The War Department has consistently refrained from recommending approval of legislation designed to single out one individual for preferential treatment necessarily denied to many others. However, in view of this man's character as evidenced by his excellent military record, the nature of the offense indicated as being purely statutory, and the apparent absence of moral turpitude, the War Department offers no objection to the enactment of H. R. 9011." After mature reconsideration of the entire matter, the War Department adheres to the views expressed in its previous report, quoted above.

Sincerely yours,