than two-thirds of all the members elected to the senate and the house of representatives. The bill, therefore, will be effective on the approval of the Governor. This bill is designated to enable the government to meet without delay the growing crisis. It is predicated on the board power of the legislature to legislate for the protection and general welfare of the inhabitants of Puerto Rico. Under such a power the legislature may adopt any measure commensurate with any actual or threatened evil. In time of war, or impending public danger, and even without statutory authorization, private property may be appropriated to the public use (Rexford Knitting Company v. Moore & Tierney, 265 Fed. 177, 11 A. L. R. 1415), but usually the requisitioning of particular kind of property is done under statutory authority. The Congress of the United States has time and again empowered the President, in time of war or of a national emergency, to requisition private property for national defense purposes. Ever since the First World War the President has had the power, in time of war or when war is imminent, to place orders with any company for any material product needed by the War or Navy Departments, and to take immediate possession of any plant refusing to fill such orders (U. S. C., title 50, sec. 80, 11 F. C. A. 623). This power has been extended to the present emergency by section 9 of the Selective Service and Training Act of 1940 (54 Stat. 892, 11 F. C. A., title 60, appendix 5). More recently Congress has given to the President a general power of requisition of private property during the national emergency (55 Stat. 742, 11 F. Ĉ. A., title 50, appendix 20). In fact, nowadays Congress has given the President requisitioning power "over virtually everything from distilled spirits required in the making of munitions to lumber needed for making aircraft." State statutes likewise grant to the Governor the power to requisition private property. For instance, Massachusetts reenacted in 1941 a 1917 statute. which authorizes the Governor to take possession of equipment and supplies from any source available in the State and to use them in the service of the State or of the United States. In Florida the Governor has considerable control over the supply of oil, coal, and certain other commodities. He is authorized to establish pri orities or divert these materials from ordinary civilian use to either military use or use by civilians engaged in defense work. (See Emergency War Powers of the Governors of the 48 States, published by the Council of State Governments, Chicago, January 1, 1942.) Statutes of this kind have been upheld because of the actual existence of an emergency or of a state of war (Roxford Knitting Company v. Moore & Tierney, .265 Fed. 177, 11 A. L. R. 1415). However, it has been pointed out that the constitutional requirement that the Government must pay just compensation for what it takes is one which war or emergency does not suspend (U. S. v. Mo Farland, 15 Fed. 2 (d) 823). In this respect I may say that the bill under consideration substantially meets this constitutional requirement inasmuch as provision is made to compensate the owners of those enterprises the administration and operation of which the Government might take over during the existence of the present emergency. Exigencies of the kind to which the bill refers usually arise in time of war, and in the last analysis the validity of the legislation and of the particular action taken by the officer or board authorized to act, depends almost exclusively upon the actual existence of the emergency and the immediate necessity for such action. This is of course a judicial question to be decided by the courts. Compare Mitchell v. Harmony (13 How. 115, 134, 14 L. Ed. 75, 83), U. S. v. Russel (13 Wall. 623, 20 L. Ed. 474). There is no doubt about the legitimacy of the purpose of the bill under consideration, nor about the pressing necessity and convenience that the requisitioning power be vested in the government. However, I must call your attention to the fact that the instrumentality selected to carry out the purposes of this bill—the Puerto Rico Development Company-is a governmental agency of doubtful validity, for the reasons I pointed out in my recent report on House bill 669, creating the Puerto Rico Development Company. Should the act creating this agency be held unconstitutional, then the present bill will entirely fail of its purpose. It should also be noted that this bill shall take effect immediately after its approval by the Governor, while House bill creating the Puerto Rico Development Company will not take effect until 90 days after its approval. This means that if the present bill is approved the emergency requisitioning power granted therein could not possibly be exercised until at least 90 days after the approval of House bill 669 for lack of an existing instrumentality authorized to exercise such power. Respectfully, GEORGE A. MALCOLM, Attorney General. EXHIBIT Z The honorable the EXECUTIVE SECRETARY, San Juan. MAY 3, 1943. SIR: I acknowledge receipt of your letter dated April 19, 1943, referring to me for consideration and return with comments, an English and a Spanish copy of House bill No. 211 of the third regular session of the Fifteenth Legislature of Puerto Rico, entitled: "AN ACT To amend sections 1 and 6-C of Act entitled, "An Act fixing the reduction in the sentences of prisoners in penal institutions in Puerto_Rico, establishing a parole system, creating an Advisory Parole and Pardon Board, and for other purposes", approved March 14, 1907, as amended by Act No. 29, approved April 13, 1940, and for other purposes." The amendments consist in adding to section 1 four more instances in which the prisoner who observes good conduct and assiduity, shall be entitled to deductions in the term of his sentence. As the law now stands, a prisoner extinguishing a sentence of 10 years or more has a deduction of 10 days for every month. The amendment provides for a deduction of 10 days a month for a sentence of 10 to 15 years; 11 days a month for a sentence of 15 to 20 years; 12 days a month for a sentence of 20 to 30 years; and 13 days a month for a sentence of more than 30 years. The amendment of section 6-C of the law consists in adding the following sentence: "When by virtue of recommendation of the (Parole and Pardon) Board, the Governor shall grant a full pardon to a prisoner, this pardon shall carry with it in every case a restoration of the civil and political rights of the person pardoned." This amendment is wholly unnecessary inasmuch as it is a doctrine recognized in all jurisdictions that the granting of a full pardon includes the restoration of civil and political rights. In connection with this bill, permit me to invite your attention to the following: A man sentenced to serve 30 years, in accordance with this bill, serves 6,480 days, while a man sentenced to 31 years serves 6,324. In other words, the former with a lesser sentence will serve 156 days more than the latter with a longer sentence. Outside of this abnormal situation, permit me to invite your attention to the ever-increasing trend of criminality in Puerto Rico, which should not be encouraged through the reduction of the sentences imposed by the courts to be served in the penitentiary and district jails. For these reasons I hereby recommend that the bill be not approved. SIR: I have the honor to refer to your communication dated April 13, 1943, submitting for my consideration and return with comments, English and Spanish copies of House bill No. 442, of the third session of the Fifteenth Legislature of Puerto Rico, entitled: "AN ACT To amend Section 2 of Act No. 55; approved April 30, 1938, entitled 'An Act to appropriate funds for the purchase of books for the library of the Department of Justice of Puerto Rico, in the office of the Attorney General; to create the position of caretaker in said library, and for other purposes'; to provide that any appropriations authorized by the aforesaid Act for the fiscal year 1943-44 be declared null and void as of midnight of June 30, 1943, and for other purposes." Act No. 55, approved April 30, 1938, appropriated the amount of $10,000 for the purchase of books and bookcases for the library of the department of justice in the office of the attorney general, and also appropriated for the same purpose, the amount of $2,500 annually, beginning with fiscal year 1939-40, and for each year thereafter. The auditor of Puerto Rico failed, on that occasion, to set up on his books the said appropriation of $10,000 and instead granted the amount of $2,000 only for the fiscal year 1939-40, which, together with the budgetary appropriation of $500 completed the $2,500 set aside by the above referred law. For the fiscal year 1941-42 the same amount of $500 was set aside in the budget, but the auditor granted the additional amount of $10,000, appropriated by Act No. 61, approved May 1, 1941. For the current fiscal year the budgetary appropriation reads as follows: "Purchase of lawbooks (Act No. 55 of 1938), $2,500.” For the next fiscal year 1943-44, this department recommended the same appropriation of $2,500, which was reduced by the Governor to $1,000 only in his model budget (House bill 238). This appropriation of $1,000 was not increased by the legislature when approving the budget for the next year. If the Governor approves House bill 442, which amends section 2 of Act No. 55, approved April 30, 1938, we shall have during the current year the amount of only $1,000 for the purchase of lawbooks for the department of justice, an amount which I consider completely inadequate, since it will not even cover the cost of our regular subscriptions, which we are obliged to pay; furthermore, we will not have the necessary funds to purchase important newly published lawbooks, which are indispensable to the maintenance of an up to date law library. For the above-stated reasons, I respectfully request that this bill be not approved. Respectfully, M. RODRIGUEZ RAMOS, EXHIBIT No. 79 A request was made on page 816 in the testimony of Mr. Rafael Buscaglia for the opinion of the attorney general on the language of section 17 of Act No. 188 creating the Puerto Rican Development Co. This information may be found in exhibit No. 78. EXHIBIT No. 80 On pages 817 and 818 Mr. Crawford referred to statements of appropriations for the fiscal year 1943-44 as finally approved by Governor Tugwell. This information may be found above in exhibit No. 48. EXHIBIT No. 81 On page 820 Mr. Buscaglia was requested to supply a schedule outlining projects of the war emergency program estimated to cost approximately $5,000,000 in 1943-44. This information may be found in item 26 of the department of finance report submitted by the witness, and is as follows: Statement showing appropriation balances in war emergency program as of May 31, 1943 |