property. If the claim be for the total loss of a shipment it can not be said that the carrier's earnings have been reduced as a result of the fraud because it did not have any earnings thereon. There is also opportunity for a dishonest shipper or consignee to evade the provisions of this act by placing his claims in the hands of another party, in which case it would be necessary to show the connection between the two. Out of the experiences that have been had in this connection the Interstate Commerce Commission has reached the conclusion that an amendment of this paragraph is most desirable and has recommended the enactment of the proposed amendment. The following exhibit is printed as a part of this report to show plainly just how paragraph 3 of section 10 will be changed if this bill becomes a law. The language of the section which remains unchanged is shown in regular Roman type, the language which is stricken from the existing law by this bill is shown in Roman line type, and new language added is shown in italic. (3) Any person, corporation, or company, or any agent or officer thereof, whe chall deliver property for transportation to any common carrier subject to the provisions of this act, or for whom, as consignor or consignee, any such-carrier-chall transport property, who shall knowingly and willfully, directly or indirectly, himself or by employee, agent or officer, or otherwise, by false billing, false classification, false weighing, false representation of the contents of the package or the substance or character of the property, false report of weight, false statement, or by any other device or means, whether with or without the consent or connivance of the carrier, its agent or officer, obtain or attempt to obtain transportation for such of property in interstate commerce by any carrier or carriers subject to this act at less than the regular rates then established and in force on the line of transportation; or who shall knowingly and will fully, directly or indirectly, himself or by employee, agent, offieer, or otherwise, by false statement or representation as to cost, value, nature or extent of injury, or by the use of any false bill, bill of lading, receipt, voucher, roll, account, claim, certifi eate, affidavit, or deposition, knowing the same to be false, fictitious or fraudulent, or to contain any false, fetitious or fraudulent statement or entry, obtain or attempt to obtain any allowance, refund or payment for damages or otherwise in connection with or growing out of the transportation of or agreement to transport such property; whether with or without the consent or connivance of the carrier, whereby the com pensation of such carrier for such transportation, either before or after payment, shall in fact be made less than the regular rates then established-and-in-force-en-the line of transportation, shall be deemed guilty of fraud, which is hereby declared to be a misdemeanor, and shall, upon conviciton thereof in any court of the United States of competent jurisdiction within the district in which such offense was wholly or in part committed, be subject for each offense to a fine of not exceeding $5,000 or imprisonment in the penitentiary for a term not exceeding two years, or both, in the discretion of the court: Provided, That the penalty of imprisonment shall not apply to artificial persons. Any person, corporation, or company, or any agent or officer thereof, who shall knowingly and willfully, directly or indirectly, himself or by employee, agent or officer, or otherwise, whether with or without the consent or connivance of the carrier, its agent or officer, obtain, or attempt to obtain, the payment or approval for payment, in whole or in part, by any common carrier subject to this act of any claim for loss or damage, or purporting to be for loss or damage, or otherwise, in connection with or growing out of the transportation or agreement to transport property in interstate commerce, by knowingly and willfully making false statements or false representations as to the cost or value of such property, or the nature or extent of injury to such property, or by the use of any false bill, bill of lading, receipt, voucher, account, claim, certificate, affidavit, deposition, invoice, or other supporting paper, knowing the same to be false, fictitious, or fraudulent, or to contain any false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or entry, shall be deemed guilty of fraud, which is hereby declared to be a misdemeanor, and shall, upon conviction thereof in any court of the United States of competent jurisdiction within the district in which such offense was wholly or in part committed, be subject for each offense to a fine of not exceeding $5,000 or imprisonment in the penitentiary for a term of not exceeding two years, or both. O SENATE. 67TH CONGRESS, 2d Session. { REPORT No. 587. EXCLUSION OF THE TERRITORY OF HAWAII FROM THE OPERATION OF THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE ACT AND THE SAFETY APPLIANCE ACTS. APRIL 3, 1922.-Ordered to be printed. Mr. CUMMINS, from the Committee on Interstate Commerce, submitted the following REPORT. [To accompany S. 1346.] The Committee on Interstate Commerce, to which was referred the bill (S. 1346) to amend an act entitled "An act to regulate commerce," approved February 4, 1887, and all acts amendatory thereof, including the safety appliance acts and the act providing for the valuation of the several classes of property of carriers subject to the Interstate Commerce Commission, approved March 1, 1913, having considered the same, report favorably thereon with the recommendation that the bill do pass with amendments. Section 1 of the interstate commerce act confers upon the commission jurisdiction over transportation and transmission wholly within a Territory of the United States. The Territory of Hawaii has a public utilities commission, created by Act No. 89 of the session laws of Hawaii for 1913. Section 5 of that act confers upon the commission * * * power to examine into the condition of each public utility doing business in the Territory; the manner in which it is operated with reference to the safety or accommodation of the public; the safety, working hours, and wages of its employees; the fares and rates charged by it; the value of its physical property; the issuance by it of stocks and bonds and the disposition of the proceeds thereof; the amount and disposition of its income and all its financial transactions; its business relations with other persons, companies, or corporations; its compliance with all applicable Territorial and Federal laws and with the provisions of its franchise, charter, and articles of association, if any; its classifications, rules, regulations, practices, and service; and all matters of every nature affecting the relations and transactions between it and the public or persons or corporations. * * * Section 13 of the act provides that The commission shall have power to examine into any of the matters referred to in section 5 of this act, notwithstanding that the same may be within the jurisdiction of the Interstate Commerce Commission, or within the jurisdiction of any court or other body, and when after such examination the commission shall be of the opinion that the circumstances warrant, it shall be its duty to effect the necessary relief or remedy by the institution and prosecution of appropriate proceedings or otherwise before said Interstate Commerce Commission, or said court or other body * After the passage of this act there existed some uncertainty concerning the jurisdiction of the Hawaiian commission over local public utilities which were subject to the control of the Interstate Commerce Commission. By an act of Congress approved March 28, 1916, all public utilities were placed under the jurisdiction of the Territorial commission, with the proviso that "* * * nothing herein contained shall in anywise limit the jurisdiction or powers of the Interstate Commerce Commission * * * Since the passage of this act, the two commissions have been acting in perfect accord. Recently, however, a local telephone company has denied the jurisdiction of the Territorial commission, and the matter is now before the Supreme Court of Hawaii for determination. Owing to the great distance of Hawaii from Washington, the wide difference between conditions there and in the United States, the expense of instituting proceedings before the Interstate Commerce Commission, and the very few instances in which the commission has been called upon to act with respect to questions within its jurisdiction in that Territory, it is believed that the provisions of the interstate commerce act and the safety appliance acts should be made inapplicable as to purely intra-Territorial business. If that is done, there can be no question of the jurisdiction of the local commission. The Hawaiian commission expresses an intention to follow closely the regulations of the Interstate Commerce Commission with respect to accounting, valuation, supervision of the issuance of securities, publication of tariffs, etc. The bill has been amended by striking out the following language, found in lines 5 to 7 and the act providing for the valuation of the several classes of property of carriers subject to the Interstate Commerce Commission, approved March 1, 1913. The change is made for the reason that the bill provides that the act to regulate commerce shall not apply to the Territory of Hawaii, and the act designated by the language stricken out is section 19(a) of that act. The title of the bill is amended for the same reason. О Mr. NELSON, from the Committee on the Judiciary, submitted the following REPORT. [To accompany H. R. 9671.] The Committee on the Judiciary, to which was referred the bill (H. R. 9671) to amend section 87 of the Judicial Code, having considered the same, report favorably thereon with the recommendation that the bill do pass without amendment. Section 87 of the Judicial Code relates to the judicial district of Massachusetts and provides the places where terms of court shall be held, the number of terms of court to be held at each place, and the date of holding such terms. The effect of the bill is to provide one more place in which terms of court shall be held, at New Bedford on the first Tuesday in August in each year. The reasons for providing this additional place are fully set out in the report of the House Committee on the Judiciary (H. Rept. 802), and are hereto appended, as follows: The additional term at New Bedford is suggested by the United States district judge for the district of Massachusetts. The Federal building at Boston is not suited to hold court with comfort to jurors, parties, or their witnesses during the summer months. The building is located in a center of business activity, surrounded on three sides by narrow streets upon which are located office buildings of many stories in height. During the hot weather the ventilation is not good, and the work can be conducted only with great discomfort. The increase of business in this district is such as to require sessions during the summer, especially for criminal business. At New Bedford there are adequate facilities, owned by the county of Bristol, and arrangements undoubtedly can be made with the county commissioners whereby the use of a commodious and comfortable court room, with all other accommodations, can be had for the term provided in the bill as amended. The proposed amendment to the bill eliminates the discretion to appoint a deputy clerk or a deputy marshal, to maintain offices at New Bedford, and further requires all precepts, processes, or writs to be returnable to the terms of court at Boston, and provides that all court papers shall be kept in the clerk's office at Boston unless the court shall otherwise order, and also provides that the terms at Boston shall not be affected or terminated by the terms at Springfield or New Bedford. Copy of letter from the judge of the district court of the Massachusetts district is hereto appended. UNITED STATES COURTS, Hon. JOSEPH WALSH, Judiciary Committee, House of Representatives. MY DEAR MR. WALSH: As you know, the Federal court rooms in Boston are so badly ventilated that they can not be used in the summer. With a single exception, when I made the experiment a few years ago, no attempt has been made to use them for many years, because it was found impossible to do so with reasonable comfort. The condition of business in the court is so bad that we may have to have summer sittings, especially on the criminal work. In this situation it occurs to me that it might be well to amend the Judicial Code by authorizing a session at New Bedford with the proviso, as in the case of the Springfield sittings, that the State of Massachusetts furnish court room accommodations, as to which I should not anticipate any difficulty if you would join with me in requesting the county commissioners to put the county court rooms at our disposal. The sitting might, I should suppose, come in on the first Tuesday of August. |