SECTION 1 This provision of the bill proposes to relieve defendants and other parties adverse to the United States in condemnation proceedings from the payment of filing fees. Under the present law a defendant is required to pay a filing fee of $5 when he files an answer or other paper joining issue. Any other party subsequently filing an answer must pay a fee of $2 for each answer. The result of the application of this law in condemnation proceedings in a Federal court is that a person whose property is being taken by the Government must pay a filing fee in order to secure a judicial determination of the amount due him as just compensation for his property. The Attorney General has recommended this feature of the bill in the following communication addressed to the Speaker under date of August 14, 1941: Hon. SAM RAYBURN, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY General, The Speaker, the House of Representatives, Washington, D. C. MY DEAR MR. SPEAKER: I desire to bring to your attention an undesirable condition in respect to court fees in condemnation proceedings. Under existing law, a defendant in a case pending in the Federal courts is required to pay a filing fee of $5 when he files an answer or other paper joining issue. Any other party subsequently filing an answer or other paper must pay a fee of $2 for each answer or paper (act of February 11, 1925, as amended; U. S. C., title 28, sec. 550). This provision is general in its scope and is applicable to condemnation proceedings in the Federal courts as well as to other civil cases. The result is that a person whose property is being taken by the Government in a condemnation proceeding in a Federal court is required to pay a filing fee in order to secure a judicial determination of the amount due to him as just compensation for his property. This seems to be an obvious injustice. Accordingly, I recommend legislation to relieve the defendants and other parties adverse to the United States in condemnation proceedings from the payment of filing fees. A proposed bill to effectuate this purpose is enclosed herewith. I have been informed by the Director of the Bureau of the Budget that the proposed legislation is in accord with the program of the President. Sincerely yours, FRANCIS BIDDLE, Acting Attorney General. SECTION 2 This section proposes to repeal that provision of existing law which imposes a fee of 1 percent to be collected by the clerk of the district court on receiving, keeping, and paying out money. Hearings were conducted on a bill (H. R. 4807) proposing to exempt States and agencies thereof from the payment of the 1-percent fee. The attention of the committee was directed particularly to a situation existing in the State of Washington where public utilities districts are faced with the expense of paying the 1-percent fee to the clerk of the district court in the acquisition of substantial properties. In one instance, where the jury determined the value of the property involved to be approximately $6,000,000 and made an award in that amount, the fee will amount to some $62,000. The service rendered by the clerk in such cases is nominal and not proportionate to the fee charged. The compensation of the clerk is in no way dependent upon the fees collected by him, clerks of the district courts having been put on a salary basis by the act of February 26, 1919. Your committee was of the opinion that, inasmuch as the fee imposed in matters of this kind is out of all proportion to the service performed by the clerk and because of the fact that the fee is not received as compensation by the clerk since he is on a salary basis, the 1-percent fee charged by the clerk for receiving, keeping, and paying out of money should be abolished. H. R. 5880 makes no distinction as to the beneficiary of the exemption, the fee being abolished in toto. In compliance with clause 2a of rule XIII existing law is printed below in roman, new matter is printed in italic, and existing law proposed to be repealed is shown in black brackets: SEC. 3. Upon the filing of any answer or paper joining issue, or the entering of order for trial, there shall be charged and collected by the clerk, from the party or parties filing any such answer or paper, for services performed and to be performed by said clerk in said case or proceeding the further sum of $5: Provided, That after one fee, as hereinbefore provided in this section, has been paid by any defendant, cross petitioner, intervenor, or party, other defendants, cross petitioners, intervenors, or parties, separately appearing or filing any answer or paper in said suit or proceeding, shall pay a further fee of $2 for each answer or paper so filed: And provided further, That upon a plea of not guilty in any criminal case there shall be charged in the costs the sum of $5, which, however, shall not be demanded of any such defendant unless and until by order, judgment, or decree of the court the costs in the case are taxed and assessed against him: And provided further, That in any proceeding instituted under any law of the United States to acquire property or any interest therein by eminent domain, defendants and other parties adverse to the condemnor shall not be required to pay the fees prescribed by this section. SEC. 8. That in addition to the fees for services rendered in cases, hereinbefore enumerated, the clerk shall charge and collect, for miscellaneous services performed by him, and his assistants, except when on behalf of the United States, the following fees: [8. For receiving, keeping, and paying out money in pursuance of any statute or order of court, including cash bail or bonds or securities authorized by law to be deposited in lieu of other security, 1 per centum of the amount so received, kept and paid out, or of the face value of such bonds or securities.] [PUBLIC LAW 467-77TH CONGRESS] [CHAPTER 124-2D SESSION] H. R. 5880] AN ACT To abolish certain fees charged by clerks of the district courts; and to exempt defendants in condemnation proceedings from the payment of filing fees in certain instances Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That section 3 of the Act entitled "An Act to provide fees to be charged by clerks of the district courts of the United States", approved February 11, 1925 (43 Stat. 857, as amended; U. S. C., 1934 edition, title 28, sec. 550), is amended by striking out the period at the end thereof and inserting a colon and the following: "And provided further, That in any proceeding instituted under any law of the United States to acquire property or any interest therein by eminent domain, defendants and other parties adverse to the condemnor shall not be required to pay the fees prescribed by this section." SEC. 2. Paragraph 8 of section 8 of the Act entitled "An Act to provide fees to be charged by clerks of the district courts of the United States", approved February 11, 1925 (43 Stat. 857; U. S. C., 1934 edition, title 28, sec. 555), is hereby repealed. Approved, March 3, 1942. IS. Rept. No. 1114, 77th Cong., 2d sess.) The Committee on the Judiciary, to whom was referred the bill (H. R. 5880) to abolish certain fees charged by clerks of the district courts; and to exempt defendants in condemnation proceedings from the payment of filing fees in certain instances, after consideration thereof, report the same favorably to the Senate with the recommendation that it do pass. Section 1 of the bill was recommended and explained in the following letter by the Attorney General addressed to the Speaker of the House dated August 14, 1941: Hon. SAM RAYBURN, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL, The Speaker, the House of Representatives, Washington, D. C. MY DEAR MR. SPEAKER: I desire to bring to your attention an undesirable condition in respect to court fees in condemnation proceedings. Under existing law, a defendant in a case pending in the Federal courts is required to pay a filing fee of $5 when he files an answer or other paper joining issue. Any other party subsequently filing an answer or other paper must pay a fee of $2 for each answer or paper (act of February 11, 1925, as amended; U. S. C., title 28, sec. 550). This provision is general in its scope and is applicable to condemnation proceedings in the Federal courts as well as to other civil cases. The result is that a person whose property is being taken by the Government in a condemnation proceeding in a Federal court is required to pay a filing fee in order to secure a judicial determination of the amount due to him as just compensation for his property. This seems to be an obvious injustice. Accordingly, I recommend legislation to relieve the defendants and other parties adverse to the United States in condemnation proceedings from the payment of filing fees. A proposed bill to effectuate this purpose is enclosed herewith. I have been informed by the Director of the Bureau of the Budget that the proposed legislation is in accord with the program of the President. Sincerely yours, FRANCIS BIDDLE, Acting Attorney General. The following quotation from the House report is explanatory of section 2: "This section proposes to repeal that provision of existing law which imposes a fee of 1 percent to be collected by the clerk of the district court on receiving, keeping, and paying out money. "Hearings were conducted on a bill (H. R. 4807) proposing to exempt States and agencies thereof from the payment of the 1-percent fee. The attention of the committee was directed particularly to a situation existing in the State of Washington where public utilities districts are faced with the expense of paying the 1-percent fee to the clerk of the district court in the acquisition of substantial properties. In one instance, where the jury determined the value of the property involved to be approximately $6,000,000 and made an award in that amount, the fee will amount to some $62,000. "The service rendered by the clerk in such cases is nominal and not proportionate to the fee charged. The compensation of the clerk is in no way dependent upon the fees collected by him, clerks of the district courts having been put on a salary basis by the act of February 26, 1919. "Your committee was of the opinion that, inasmuch as the fee imposed in matters of this kind is out of all proportion to the service performed by the clerk and because of the fact that the fee is not received as compensation by the clerk since he is on a salary basis, the 1-percent fee charged by the clerk for receiving, keeping, and paying out of money should be abolished. "H. R. 5880 makes no distinction as to the beneficiary of the exemption, the fee being abolished in toto." O MARY THOMAS SCHIEK JULY 7, 1949.-Committed to the Committee of the Whole House and ordered to be printed Mr. LANE, from the Committee on the Judiciary, submitted the following REPORT To accompany H. R. 33001 The Committee on the Judiciary, to whom was referred the bill (H. R. 3300) for the relief of Mary Thomas Schiek, having considered the same, report favorably thereon with amendments and recommend that the bill do pass. The amendments are as follows: Page 1, line 5, strike out "$50,000", and insert "$35,000". Page 1, line 6, after the name "Schiek" insert "of Milwaukee, Wisconsin". Page 1, line 7, after the word "States" strike out the bill down to the colon in line 3, page 2, and insert: for personal injuries, pain and suffering, permanent disability, and loss of earnings sustained by her and arising out of an accident which occurred in Bengal Province, India, on May 27, 1945, while she was riding in an Army truck, and against all officers, agents, or employees of the United States whose acts or omissions caused or contributed to the personal injuries, pain and suffering, permanent disability, and loss of earnings sustained by the said Mary Thomas Schiek. Amend title so as to read: A bill for the relief of Mary Thomas Schiek. The purpose of the proposed legislation is to pay the sum of $35,000 to Mary Thomas Schiek, of Milwaukee, Wis., in full settlement of all claims against the United States and against Charles H. McDevitt, Jr., formerly a major in the Medical Corps, and chief of the surgical service, Three Hundred and Seventy-second Station Hospital, for permanent injuries suffered as the result of the negligent operation of an Army truck on May 27, 1945, in Bengal Province, India, and as the result of neglect and malpractice by Army Medical Corps personnel of the Three Hundred and Seventy-second Station Hospital. STATEMENT OF FACTS It appears that Miss Schiek received injuries on May 27, 1945, in Bengal Province, India, while in the service of the American Red Cross, while riding in an Army truck, which overturned, throwing Miss Schiek out. She was immediately taken to the Three Hundred and Seventy-second Station Hospital of the United States Army where she remained for 48 days. Charles H. McDevitt, Jr., chief of the surgical service, discharged her on July 21, 1945, stating that he could find no reason for her constant pain, found no serious injuries and believed she would be ready for active duty in 2 weeks. Shortly thereafter, she collapsed in Calcutta and was taken by ambulance to the One Hundred and Forty-second General Hospital there. Maj. Helman C. Wasserman was in charge of her case. His office is now at 4500 Olive Street, St. Louis, Mo. The Calcutta hospital found gross negligence and malpractice had occurred at the Three Hundred and Seventy-second Field Hospital and that Miss Schiek actually had received the following injuries which had been overlooked-severe transverse fracture of sacrum, fracture of the pelvis, fracture of the process of lumbar four and five, mid lateral ribs broken, severe injuries to the cauda equina and sacro nerves, no sensation in the lower part of the extremities, inability to walk, unable to control bowels or urine, atrophy of muscles of leg. The claimant was removed to Halloran Hospital, Staten Island, N. Y., in the fall of 1945. Consultation by Capt. John J. Lowrey, February 5, 1946, suggested ability to return to work in 3 or 4 months. Further examination by same doctor in May 1946 suggested further total disability for 6 months, examination October 1946 by the same doctor suggested inability to work for at least an additional year. In November of 1947, Dr. Wasserman examined Miss Schiek, and stated that "these restrictions will remain and your future life will undoubtedly have to be regulated by these handicaps." Approximately 3 years after accident she is still unable to walk more than 2 blocks without exhaustion and will slide off an average chair unless her feet are supported. She cannot wear ordinary shoes, but only soft-soled slippers. Because of weakness and atrophy of muscles she is unable to sit or lie in any one position for more than a short period, is still incapable of properly controlling urine and feces and must spend most of her mornings caring for these functions. Any earning capacity that claimant will have will be restricted to what she can do in her own home. Prior to enlisting in the service of the American Red Cross, Miss Schiek was employed by the Boston Store, Inc., of Milwaukee. Robert A. Heinz, assistant promotion director there, has written that Miss Schiek would have been rehired if physically able to resume her duties and would earn between $45 and $50 per week. As it is, she earns nothing. Claimant does not come under the provisions of the Federal Tort Claims Act and may not institute suit for her injuries because the accident took place in India, outside of the continental limits of the United States, and her only relief must necessarily come from Congress. Her claim has been exhausted administratively in the War Department, and on February 20, 1948, C. O. Wolfe, colonel, Judge Advocate General's Department, Chief, Claims and Litigation Division, and T. L. Borom, lieutenant colonel, Judge Advocate General's |