AMENDING THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA MOTOR VEHICLE RESPONSIBILITY ACT

MARCH 19, 1941.-Referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be printed

Mr. RANDOLPH, from the Committee on the District of Columbia, submitted the following

REPORT

[To accompany H. R. 4036]

The Committee on the District of Columbia to whom was referred the bill (H. R. 4036) to amend the District of Columbia Motor Vehicle Financial Responsibility Act, approved May 3, 1935, having considered the same, report favorably thereon without amendment and recommend that the bill do pass.

The purpose of the bill is to make the provisions of the financialresponsibility law applicable to all cases of reckless operation of motor vehicles whereby personal injury is caused. That law at present applies to cases of driving while under the influence of intoxicating liquor, and leaving the scene of an automobile accident in which personal injury occurs, as provided in the act of Congress approved March 3, 1925, as amended, and commonly known as the Traffic Acts. This proposed bill will add reckless driving, as set out in the Traffic Acts, to the above category.

The large number of reckless-driving cases involving personal injury arising on the highways of the District of Columbia justifies the amendment proposed here.

The Commissioners consider this proposed legislation desirable and necessary and urge its early enactment.

CHANGES IN EXISTING LAW

In compliance with paragraph 2a of rule XIII of the Rules of the House of Representatives the changes proposed by this bill are set out as follows (existing law proposed to be omitted is enclosed in black brackets, new matter is printed in italics, existing law in which no change is proposed is shown in roman):

SEC. 2. The motor-vehicle operator's permit and all of the registration certificates of any person who shall by a final order or judgment have been convicted

of or shall have forfeited any bond or collateral given for a violation of any of the following provisions of law, to wit

Driving while under the influence of intoxicating liquor or narcotic drugs, as provided in section 10 of the act of Congress approved March 3, 1925, as amended, and commonly known as the Traffic Acts;

Leaving the scene of an automobile accident in which personal injury occurs without making identity known, as provided in section 10 of said Traffic Acts; Reckless driving, as provided in section (9) (b) of such Traffic Acts, if personal injury occurs as a result thereof;

A conviction of an offense in any other State, which if committed in the District of Columbia would be a violation of any of the aforesaid provisions of the traffic Acts of the District of Columbia, shall be suspended by the Commissioners of the District of Columbia or their designated agent and shall remain so suspended and shall not at any time thereafter be renewed, nor shall any other motor vehicle be thereafter registered in his name until he shall give proof of his ability to respond thereafter in damages resulting from the ownership or operation of a motor vehicle and arising by reason of personal injury to or death of any one person of at least $5,000, and, subject to the aforesaid limit for each person injured or killed, of at least $10,000 for such injury to or the death of two or more persons in any one accident, and for damage to property of at least $1,000 resulting from any one accident. Such proof in said amounts shall be furnished for each motor vehicle owned or registered by such person. If any such person shall fail to furnish said proof, his operator's permit and registration certificates shall remain suspended and shall not at any time thereafter be renewed, nor shall any other motor vehicle be thereafter registered in his name until such time as said proof be given. If such person shall not be a resident of the District of Columbia the privilege of operating any motor vehicle in the District of Columbia and the privilege of operation within the District of Columbia of any motor vehicle owned by him shall be withdrawn until he shall have furnished such proof: Provided, That in case of both residents and nonresidents, however, if it shall be duly established to the satisfaction of the said commissioners or their designated agent, and the said commissioners or their designated agent shall so find (a) that any such person so convicted, or who shall have pled guilty or forfeited bond or collateral, was, upon the occasion of the violation upon which such conviction, plea, or forfeiture was based, a chauffeur or motor-vehicle operator, however designated, in the employ of the owner of such motor vehicle; or a member of the same family and household of the owner of such motor vehicle, and (b) that there was not, at the time of such violation, or subsequent thereto, up to the date of such finding, any motor vehicle registered in the District of Columbia in the name of such person convicted, entering a plea of guilty or forfeiting bond or collateral, as aforesaid, then in such event, if the person in whose name such motor vehicle is registered shall give proof of ability to respond in damages, in accordance with the provisions of this act (and the said commissioners or their designated agent shall accept such proof from such person), such chauffeur or other person, as aforesaid, shall thereupon be relieved of the necessity of giving such proof in his own behalf. It shall be the duty of the clerk of the court in which any such judgment or order is rendered or other action taken to forward immediately to the said commissioners or their designated agent a certified copy or transcript thereof, which said certified copy or transcript shall be prima facie evidence of the facts therein stated.

INFORMATION CONCERNING AIRPLANE CONTRACTS

MARCH 19, 1941.-Ordered to be printed

Mr. MAY, from the Committee on Military Affairs submitted the

following

ADVERSE REPORT

[To accompany H. Res. 140|

The Committee on Military Affairs to whom was referred the resolution (H. Res. 140) requesting the Secretary of War to furnish information which may answer certain questions relating to airplane contracts, having considered the same, submit the following report thereon with the recommendation that it do not pass:

The action of the committee is based upon the following letter from the Secretary of War under date of March 13, 1941:

Hon. ANDREW J. MAY,

Chairman, Committee on Military Affairs,

WAR DEPARTMENT, Washington, March 13, 1941.

House of Representatives.

DEAR MR. MAY: The attention of the War Department has been called to House Resolution 140 submitted by Mr. Hook on March 11, 1941, and referred to your committee. The resolution proposes that the Secretary of War be directed to furnish the House of Representatives considerable detailed information in regard to a design competition contemplating the quantity procurement of training airplanes, particularly with reference to a bid submitted by the Lenert Aircraft Corporation (now known as the Zephyr Aircraft Corporation).

The several matters to which reference is made in the resolution relate to a design competition projected by Circular Proposal 39-635, dated March 11, 1939, and as result of which bids were opened on July 7, 1939. The procedure taken was under the authority contained in section 10 of the act of July 2, 1926 (44 Stat. 788), the applicable provisions of which were recited with particularity in the advertisement. As required by law, all prospective bidders were advised as to the type of aircraft desired and the quantity contemplated for procurement, and detailed information as to the conditions and requirements of the competition, including the method of evaluation for determination of the winners, was likewise transmitted to each such prospective bidder. Each bidder was required to submit a scale of prices for which it would undertake the construction of aircraft covered by its designs.

All bids received in response to the invitation, including that of the Lenert Aircraft Corporation, were analyzed by a board of officers appointed for that purpose, and detailed consideration was given to such data as were submitted to

H. Repts., 77-1, vol. 2-21

meet the requirements of the circular proposal and the specifications therein referred to. Winners of the competition were announced in accordance with the procedure laid down in section 10 of the act of July 2, 1926, and a contract for the manufacture of training airplanes was subsequently awarded to one of such winners. The Lenert Aircraft Corporation, upon the basis of the design and data submitted by it, was not a winner of the competition, and was not entitled to be so declared; hence this company was not eligible for an aircraft award under the terms of the circular proposal.

Subsequent to the announcement of winners of the competition, the Lenert Aircraft Corporation filed a protest, alleging its right to an award of contract, principally by reason of its submission of the lowest bid as to price. The act of July 2, 1926, provides only for consideration of such a protest upon a reasonable showing, in writing, that error was made, whereby the complainant was unjustly deprived of an award. The protest filed made no showing of error, reasonable or otherwise, and was unsupported by factual data. The protest was therefore considered to be without merit and the claimant was advised to that effect. By letter dated March 20, 1940, Mr. W. F. Lenert, writing in behalf of the_Lenert Aircraft Corporation, of which he was then president, advised the War Department as follows:

"After a further investigation and minute study of the facts, we have reached the conclusion that the complaints and protests filed in our letters in reference to Circular Proposal 39-635 were based on insufficient information. If we had been in possession of the information and facts that we now have, the complaints would not have been filed originally. Accordingly we request that you kindly return all the correspondence dealing with that matter."

It is readily apparent by reference to the act of July 2, 1926, above referred to, as well as to the terms and the conditions of the circular proposal, that the declaration of winners of the competition was necessarily based upon the merit of designs meeting the advertised specifications and that the question of price was not for consideration until subsequent to the declaration of winners. It will be noted that the law provides that contracts may be entered into with a winner, or winners, of the competition at prices to be negotiated, but not to exceed those submitted with the bid.

In connection with the foregoing, attention is invited to opinion of the Attorney General, dated April 9, 1937 (39 Op. Atty. Gen. No. 5), dealing with the act of July 2, 1926, and reading as follows:

"While R. S. 3709 requires strict competitive bidding as to price, and award to the lowest responsible bidder offering products complying with the specifications, section 10 (b), Air Corps Act, permits competition based on performance, and contemplates that performance rather than price shall be the controlling factor. While competitive bidding is a prerequisite to award, after bids have been obtained the action of the Secretary of War in awarding contract to the bidder offering the airplane which, in the Secretary's opinion, is the best suited to the needs of the Government, notwithstanding such bidder may not be the lowest, is not reviewable except by the President and the Federal courts."

In view of the foregoing, it is hoped that the committee will consider detailed replies to the questions propounded in the resolution to be unnecessary. In the event, however, that such detailed information is deemed essential, the War Department will of course furnish all available data desired.

Time has not permitted the submission of this report to the Bureau of the Budget.

Sincerely yours,

O

HENRY L. STIMSON,
Secretary of War.

1st Session

No. 287

AMENDING THE AGRICULTURAL ADJUSTMENT ACT TO REGULATE INTERSTATE AND FOREIGN COMMERCE IN PEANUTS

MARCH 19, 1941.-Ordered to be printed

Mr. FULMER, from the committee of conference, submitted the

following

CONFERENCE REPORT

[To accompany H. R. 3546]

The committee of conference on the disagreeing votes of the two Houses on the amendment of the Senate to the bill (H. R. 3546) to amend the Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1938, as amended, for the purpose of regulating interstate and foreign commerce in peanuts, and for other purposes, having met, after full and free conference, have agreed to recommend and do recommend to their respective Houses as follows:

That the House recede from its disagreement to the amendment of the Senate and agree to the same with an amendment as follows: On page 3, line 19, of the Senate engrossed amendment, strike out the figures "90" and insert the figures 95; on page 4, line 8, of the Senate engrossed amendment, strike out the word "of" and insert the word on; on page 4 of the Senate engrossed amendment, strike out lines 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, and 19 and insert Notwithstanding any other provisions of this section, the Secretary shall proclaim a national marketing quota with respect to the crop of peanuts produced in the calendar year 1941 equal to the minimum quota provided for said year in subsection (a) hereof and shall provide for the holding of a referendum on such quota within thirty days after the date upon which this Act becomes effective, and the State and farm acreage allotments established under the 1941 agricultural conservation program shall be the State and farm acreage allotments for the 1941 crop of peanuts; on page 5, line 3, of the Senate engrossed amendment, strike out the figures "90" and insert the figures 95; on page 6 of the Senate engrossed amendment, lines 5, 6, and 7, strike out the period after the word "year", insert a semicolon and strike out the following sentence "In the distribution of such increase of 2 per centum, preference shall be given to the claims of new producers"