« PreviousContinue »
Judge PATTERSON. No, sir; not that I know of. I think it was always the fair value.
Senator CHANDLER. I will say to my friend from Vermont that I know that the War Department is not going to take out anything they do not need, and they could take it under the general property clause, and they would not take any materials or machines out of a plant if it would destroy the operation of the plant, unless it was absolutely necessary to defend the people of the United States. Mr. Secretary, have you ever envisioned a situation where you would take anything out of a plant unless it was needed in the help of the defense of the country?
Judge PATTERSON. No; I do not.
Senator CHANDLER. I do not envision a situation like that, and under 829 I do not think there is any place where the United States would do that except for the defense of the country, do you?
Senator HILL. I think that would be similar to the situation where we take these men and put them in the Army, we pay them $21 a month and we made no provision to pay any damage for any loss because he had to leave his business, and he might have been making $150 a month, and you are only going to pay him $21 a month.
I think we had this same question up in the Commerce Committee, about requiring our ships to operate under warrants under the Government, and the shipowners and everybody admitted there is more business than there are ships to carry on that business, but under the system under which we are set up now, under the law, a ship to operate now has to have a warrant from the Maritime Commission, and under that warrant, a ship has to operate along the lines that the Maritime Commission designates. These ships do not get the business, but a ship might make more profit by going someplace else than operate along the lines laid down by the Maritime Commission, but we did not award the damages to them. Of course, the owners of those ships said they ought to be paid damages, because they could make more money going to other lines than the lines they had to go, but we turned them down. If we are going into this field of consequential damages for property, ships, men, where will we be ?
Mr. JONES. À trawler that is taken and converted over into a mine layer that is in the fish business, and it is practically impossible to determine the consequential damages and future profits, but you can only have the value of the trawler
Senator Austin. Mr. Chairman, may we have a vote?
The CHAIRMAN. Gentleman, if there is no further discussion we will have the vote. You do not want a regular vote, do you?
Senator AUSTIN. No.
The CHAIRMAN. All those in favor of this second amendment for the embodiment of this amendment in the bill, please let it be known by saying "aye.” Those opposed.
The “noes" seem to have it. Senator DOWNEY. I should like a division. The CHAIRMAN. All those in favor of the amendment please rise. (Three members rose..). The CHAIRMAN. All those opposed, please rise. (Eight members rose.) The CHAIRMAN. The amendment seems to be defeated.
Senator CHANDLER. Now, Mr. Chairman, if there are no further amendments, or any further discussion on these amendments, may we have a vote on the bill? Is there any further discussion on the bill, gentlemen ?
The CHAIRMAN. Does any other Senator have any amendments?
Senator KULGORE. I want to say something to Judge Patterson in retrospect. I do not believe I made myself perfectly clear before. I am still trying to force some subcontracting out of these time contracts of contractors who are trying to enlarge their factories at the Government's expense. We have a lot of plants in the United States who are already overflooded because the prime contractors will not subcontract some of this work, but are trying to build up their plants at Government expense. Now, as to that word “recalcitrant," I have tried to regard the word “recalcitrant” as being applied to a manufacturer who did not want to cooperate, and who is stifling production by their failure to participate
Judge PATTERSON. May I say that the President is under the impression, and I am sure the correct impression, that the entire industrial power has not been thrown behind this effort to regard his policy that all work must be subcontracted out to the limit of efficiency and that only in cases where you cannot take the work to the machine should you take the machine to the work. Now, that is the policy that we are endeavoring to carry out, and I am sure that you
agree that that is a proper policy:
Senator KILGORE. That is the only policy that I am after. I am trying to see that that policy is followed and not let these people have any false ideas that they can build up their plants at the expense of the people.
The CHAIRMAN. I think that Captain Jones wants to submit a few ideas, and we will be glad to hear him.
Mr. JONES. I want to say, Mr. Chairman, that we are bending every effort and realize the necessity of this subcontracting work, and we have set up a Nation-wide organization in the Navy Department in every district in the country under our supervision, and we have instructed the inspectors of naval material and the commanders of navy yards to designate the district liaison officers to ask for the national-defense contract service in that district, to utilize all of the outlets of subcontractors.
Senator GURNEY. I notice that in this bill there was nothing about the inventions and patents. Mr. Secretary, have you anything to say about that?
Judge PATTERSON. That is true; we dropped that for the sake of simplicity. I, myself, know of no instances of any patent abuses. That was included in the original bill because the Department of Justice had told us they had some, but I have not yet any specifications, and it seemed to me to be in the interest of simplicity that we might well drop that and wait until such time as the need may arise.
Senator LEE. Well, I read in the papers, and heard considerable about patents owned by companies that had a mapority of their stockholders German citizens which were stopping certain Government processes because we could not get the use of those patents. Now
Judge PATTERSON. All I know is what I read in the papers, the same as you, but we were stripping down here, and having the bill carry as
little as might be possible, and there was some clause in there that was applicable to patents and inventions, but we thought that thing could be eliminated, and we left that out. I think that the courts are prevented from granting injunctions in patent cases where they are working on stuff for the Government.
Senator Hill. I believe there was also a provision in these statutes whereby the Government can exercise the use of any patent rights. I recall at the time that question came up-after all, the only right to a patent is the right that the Governmen gives you, and if a man has a patent which is violated he has the right to go to court.
Senator AUSTIN. Mr. Chairman and gentlemen, if you will permit me, I want to record my vote for these amendments, and then I will leave.
The CHAIRMAN. I have before me now a letter which has just been called to my attention by Colonel Watt, from the Cleveland Chamber of Commerce
Senator Hill. Before Senator Austin leaves, I wish to express my appreciation for the assistance that he has given us in this legislation. Senator LEE. And I second that motion.
Senator SCHWARTZ. And I want to thank you for all the aid you have given us since we have been organized.
The CHAIRMAN. And I want to say that the chairman feels the same way. Colonel Watt has brought to my attention a letter from the Cleveland Chamber of Commerce.
Senator SCHWARTZ. Mr. Chairman, do you want that letter to go into the record ?
The CHAIRMAN. I think I shall let it go into the record. I do not want to read it. It is a brief letter, but I do not want to be discourteous, and we will have it copied in the record. I think it should have been presented at the public hearing, while the public hearing was going on, and it seems that they had ample time, but we will extend them that courtesy.
JULY 11, 1941. Re S. 1579—Reynolds property requisition bill. Hon. ROBERT R. REYNOLDS, Chairman, Senate Committee on Military Affairs,
Washington, D. C. DEAR MR. REYNOLDS: The board of directors of the Cleveland Chamber of Commerce, in approving a report presented by its committee on national legislation, in conjunction with groups from its manufacturers committee and its committee on patents and trade-marks, desires to submit amendments which will correct what it believes to be very objectionable features in this bill.
The recommendations of the committee are quite brief and are attached hereto. We trust that you will give these views your usual careful consideration. Sincerely yours,
WALTER I. BEAM,
Executive Vice President. Senator Hill. Now, gentlemen, I want to say a word about the bill under consideration here. The Senate bill, No. 1579, which was referred to this committee and this draft was presented by Senator Chandler has, of course, not yet been introduced, and I want to move to strike everything from the enacting clause down to the end of the original bill, and substitute in lieu thereof
The CHAIRMAN. The Chandler bill?
Senator THOMAS. You are going to cut out that part which contains the words, "during any period of war.
Senator CHANDLER. I have already done that.
The CHAIRMAN. All right. Now, all those in favor of reporting favorably on the bill will please let it be known by saying “Aye.”
(The majority said "Aye.”)
The CHAIRMAN. There is no opposition to the reporting of the bill, it being unanimous. I will therefore designate Senator Chandler to report the bill.
Senator CHANDLER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The CHAIRMAN. I want to take the opportunity to thank Captain Jones and the Under Secretary of War and the President's secretary for the time that they have extended and devoted us in aiding us to straighten this out, and it is always a pleasure to have you gentlemen here. Is there any other business before the meeting?