and April 8, 1944, complaining of headaches and pain in the muscles of neck and tenderness and pain in left shoulder. She also complained of some swelling of the left ankle following the accident, which the doctor was unable to find on his examination of April 8 when he found both ankles were 91⁄2 inches in circumference. In his first report, Dr. Heim stated the following:

"Previous History: In October 1943 Mrs Colliver had an abdominal operation, which according to her statement was the removal of a fallopian tube. Under date of April 15th I made a professional call on her at her sister's home and found her bedfast and with a temperature. It is my impression that there is a possible gynecological and endocrine disturbance. Blood pressure reading under date of March 27. 1944 was 105/65. It is my impression that she is not very robust.

"Under date of March 28, 1944 the following X-rays were taken:

1. Cervical and occipital region.

2. Lateral of skull.

3. Anterior-posterior left shoulder.

4. Frontal sinus film.

"I had occasion to talk with her sister, Mrs. Hawkinson this date and she stated that during Mrs. Colliver's present illness she is complaining of pain more particularly in right quadrant of abdomen.

In his second report Dr. Heim stated:

"In reply to your letter of May 2, wish to state that I had occasion to make a further examination of the above named under date of May 12, 1944. I have reviewed the series of X-rays taken as enumerated in my report to you under date of April 29, 1944. I do not find any irregularities of bony structure, no fractures, and no chipping of bone or no shadows in osseous structures.

"Mrs. Colliver gives a history of abdominal operation under date of October 1942 and states that there has been no persistent menstrual periods since the pelvic surgery, which would indicate that the menstrual part of the uterus was removed at that time.

"Mrs. Colliver appears very nervous and continues to complain of some tenderness in left shoulder. However, that condition is decidedly improved and will apparently be completely relieved. She also periodically complains of pain upon deep palpation in right outer quadrant of lower abdomen, which she feels is an old post-operative pelvic condition that has been reactivated as a result of her recent accident. She further states that the headaches are now completely relieved. She complains of nervousness and weakness but is now able to be up and about."

No doubt the date of operation, October 1943, in his first report is erroneous, and should be October 1942.

Mrs. Colliver was employed by the Federal Cartridge Corp., Twin Cities ordnance plant, from February 25, 1943, to February 28, 1944, when she was released because of "Reduction in personnel." During this employment she was granted leave of absence from April 21, 1943, to June 21, 1943, because of physical disability and again from July 26, 1943, to August 23, 1943, because of family illness. She was offered reemployment by a letter dated April 12, 1944, to which she made no reply nor did she report to the company to accept the offer of reemployment. This offer of reemployment was made although her work record was unsatisfactory. The reports of her employers made while she was working, showed that she complained to a woman consultant in the building where she was employed regarding her physical condition and explained that she was sick for some time prior to the employment and was still recuperating during that time. Because of this condition the report states she was given the easiest jobs.

From the facts as reported it would appear that Mrs. Colliver did not suffer any injury or an aggravation of a preexisting condition while riding in the Veterans' Administration ambulance on March 25, 1944, and that the ambulance was operated in a careful and lawful manner during the period Mrs. Colliver was in it. There is no evidence of negligence on the part of any employee of the Veterans' Administration.

For the reasons stated the Veterans' Administration cannot recommend favorable action on H. R. 4523, Seventy-ninth Congress.

Advice has been received from the Bureau of the Budget that there would be no objection by that office to the submission of this report to your committee.

Very truly yours,

OMAR N. BRADLEY,
General, United States Army,
Administrator.

LONG BEACH 2, CALIF., June 28, 1946. Colliver, Mrs. M. R. Age, 47 years; height, 5 feet 4 inches; weight, 115 pounds: 2010 Capitol Drive, San Pedro, Calif.; no telephone; reference: Dr. Arnold. Complaint.-Pain and stiffness in the neck.

History. Approximately 2 years ago (Mar. 25, 1944) the patient was a passenger in an ambulance of the Veteran's Administration, near Minneapolis, Minn. The ambulance came to an abrupt stop and the patient was forced against the dashboard and windshield. She sustained injuries to her forehead. She was taken to her home where she developed intense headache and vomiting. The following day she developed pain and tenderness on the left side of the neck, together with stiffness. No X-rays have ever been taken of her head or neck. However, since that time she has had recurrent attacks of headache and stiffness of the neck. She has not been hospitalized at any time because of this illness. For over 2 months she attended her family physician, Dr. Heim in Minneapolis but left there to come to California before her treatment was completed. She has been applying heat to the neck herself at home and taking aspirin. The attacks have been occurring once or twice a week ever since. their usual duration being from 4 to 8 hours.

Present complaints.—(1) Nervousness; (2) pain in the left side of the neck; (3) headaches, generalized, but worse in the forehead region..

The patient is wearing glasses and has difficulty in hearing, but these are not related to the injury.

Past history.-Tonsillectomy age 27, appendectomy age 16; pelvic surgery in 1940, menopause following. No serious medical illnesses. In 1928 was struck. by a car and was in the hospital for 4 weeks, with injury to the ribs and recurrent coma for about 4 weeks.

Examination. The patient is a well-developed, fairly well-nourished female of stated age, with early graying of the hair and blue eyes. Patient has recently lost weight. Blood pressure, right arm, 114/64; left arm, 110/64. Pulse has normal rate and is regular. Pupils are small, of slightly oval shape, and eyes react to light and accommodation. EOM are normal. The left lid tends to droop quite definitely. There is no nystagmus. There is no tenderness about the scalp or skull. There are no visible marks of injury to the neck The neck is flexible through a full range of normal motion, but antiflexion and extension of the neck produce pain near the vertebra prominens. The left shoulder is slightly lower than the right shoulder. The cervical spines when struck are locally tender but the muscles about the neck are not stiff nor rigid. There is no adenopathy in the neck. The thyroid gland is not palpable. Romberg test is negative. There is no tremor of the extended hands. The shoulders are fully flexible through flexion, abduction and extension throughout the normal range of motion.

Elevation of

the shoulders, depression, pushing and pulling are equally performed on the two sides. The elbows, wrist and finger motions are normal. Measurements of the arms: deltoid, right and left, 91⁄2 inches; elbows, right and left. 11⁄2 inches; forearms. right and left, 9 inches; both wrists, 6 inches

Knee jerks are present,
Sensation of the neck,

The tendon reflexes are bilaterally normal in the arms. active and equal, Achilles' jerks are depressed but present. shoulders, arms, forearms, wrists, hands and fingers is present, equal and normal for both sides. The Romberg test is negative.

Comment. Because of the patient's limited financial means we are unable to obtain X-rays of her neck and skull It seems fairly obvious, however, that she sustained a bruising injury of the forehead and neck which have left in their wake a moderate post-traumatic syndrome. The definite objective findings of severe neck injury are at this time wanting, but it is to be realized that this examination is made more than 2 years after the original injury

CONFERRING JURISDICTION UPON THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE CENTRAL DIVISION OF THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA, TO HEAR, DETERMINE, AND RENDER JUDGMENT UPON THE CLAIM OF EUNICE HAYES, KATHRYN HAYES, AND FLORENCE HAYES GAINES

JULY 26, 1949.-Committed to the Committee of the Whole House and ordered to be printed

Mr. KEATING, from the Committee on the Judiciary, submitted the following

REPORT

To accompany H. R. 4564)

The Committee on the Judiciary, to whom was referred the bill (H. R. 4564) to confer jurisdiction upon the United States District Court for the Central Division of the Southern District of California, to hear, determine, and render judgment upon the claim of Eunice Hayes, Kathryn Hayes, and Florence Hayes Gaines, having considered the same, report favorably thereon with amendments and recommend that the bill do pass.

The amendments are as follows:

Strike out all after the enacting clause and insert in lieu thereof:

That jurisdiction is hereby conferred upon the United States District Court for the Central Division of the Southern District of California, to hear, determine, and render judgment upon the claim of Eunice Hayes, Kathryn Hayes, and Florence Hayes Gaines, of Los Angeles, California for alleged damages sustained to their property at the southeast corner of Exposition Boulevard and Overland Boulevard, County of Los Angeles, California, as the result of the activities of the United States Army, in acquiring the property for military uses in June of 1942. SEC. 2. Suit upon such claim may be instituted at any time within one year after the enactment of this Act, notwithstanding the lapse of time or any statute of limitations. Proceedings for the determination of such claim, appeals therefrom, and payment of any judgment thereon, shall be in the same manner as in cases over which such court has jurisdiction under the provisions of paragraph twentieth of section 24 of the Judicial Code, as amended."

Amend the title so as to read:

A bill to confer jurisdiction upon the United States District Court for the Southern District of California, to hear, determine, and render judgment upon the claim of Eunice Hayes. Kathryn Hayes, and Florence Hayes Gaines.

The purpose of the proposed legislation is to confer jurisdiction. upon the United States District Court for the Southern District of

California to hear, determine and render judgment upon the claim of Eunice Hayes, Kathryn Hayes, and Florence Hayes Gaines, of Los Angeles, Calif., for alleged damages sustained to their property at the southeast corner of Exposition Boulevard and Overland Boulevard in the county of Los Angeles, State of California, as the result of the activities of the United States Army, in acquiring the property for military uses in June of 1942.

STATEMENT OF FACTS

This bill is to confer jurisdiction upon the district court to consider this claim. The bill was originally introduced for $93,160 for damages sustained. Your committee is of the opinion that there is a certain amount of damages, however, from the evidence submitted it is unable to make an award for any particular sum, and believes that it should be referred to court for settlement.

Therefore, the bill is amended accordingly and favorably recommended, as amended.

WAR DEPARTMENT, Washington, July 31, 1945.

Hon. EARL C. MICHENER,

Chairman. Committee on the Judiciary,

House of Representatives.

DEAR MR. MICHENER: The War Department is opposed to the enactment of H. R. 3755, a bill for the relief of Kitty Hayes, Eunice Hayes, Kathyrn Hayes, and Florence Hayes Gaines.

Under the provisions of H. R. 3755, the Secretary of the Treasury is authorized and directed to pay to Kitty Hayes. Eunice Hayes, Kathyrn Hayes, and Florence Hayes Gaines, of Los Angeles, Calif., the sum of $93,160 in full settlement of all clas against the United States on account of the acts and omissions of the War Department in respect to the taking of possession and the use of, damage to, and failure to restore to its original condition, claimants' real property located at the southeast corner of Exposition Boulevard and Overland Boulevard in the county of Los Angeles, Calif

On June 20, 1942, the Government leased from Mrs. Kitty Hayes 134 acres of unimproved land located at the southeast corner of Exposition and Overland Boulevards in Los Angeles County, Calif. The lease provided for payment of $49 a month rental and cancellation upon 20 days' written notice to the lessor. and that the Government would, if required by the lessor, restore the premises to the same condition existing at the time of entering thereon under the lease. reasonable and ordinary wear and tear and damages by the elements or cireumstances over which the Government had no control, excepted

During its period of occupancy the Government used the premises for tactica purposes and considerable alterations were made thereon, including the construction of buildings, underground shelters, roadways, latrines, sewer and water pipes, underground intercommunication lines, and machine-gun positions

The Government terminated the lease by due notice to Mrs. Hayes effective December 29, 1944, and she resumed possession of the premises on December 30, 1944. The Government negotiated supplemental agreement with Mrs. Hayes (effective December 28, 1944) which provided for the transfer of certain Government-owned improvements on the property to the lessor and the payment of $6,840 in lieu of the Government's obligation to restore the premises under the terms of the lease. Under paragraph 4 of this supplemental agreement, Mrs. Hayes released the Government from any and all manner of actions, liability and claims for the restoration of the said premises but reserved "the right to file a claim or claims for any other matter or thing whatsoever arising out of said ease, or the occupation of said premises."

Mrs. Kitty Hayes, on April 6. 1945, together with her three daughters, in whom she had vested title to the subject property as joint tenants with herself, filed a claim against the Government in the sum of $45,779.33. The claimants alleged that the lease had been obtained under duress and that at the time of the signing of the lease the property had actually been confiscated by the "Com

manding general, Thirty-seventh Coast Artillery Brigade of the Ninth Corps Area." The claimants further alleged that the rental value of the property was at least $70 a month, and that had they been allowed to proceed under normal conditions they would have collected a total of $2,265.67 instead of $1,486.34 paid by the Government. In addition, the claimants stated that through the confiscation of the property by the Government, which thus deprived the owners of the right of sale, and through other acts of the Government, they had suffered a financial loss in the sum of $45,000 by devaluation of the property.

As the result of a thorough investigation of the claim by representatives of the War Department, it was found that the lease was not signed by Kitty Hayes until approximately 1 month subsequent to the original negotiations with her for the use of the property by the Government, and that during such time she had ample opportunity to obtain legal advice as to her rights and to consider whether she desired to sign the lease at the rental value offered by the Government. The report of the officer who conducted preliminary negotiations with Mrs. Hayes reveals that she was agreeable to leasing the property at a rental sufficient to pay the taxes thereon. There is no evidence other than the allegations of the claimants that the property could have been sold, although it was listed for sale with several real-estate brokers.

Subsequent to the above-mentioned investigation, the claim was transmitted to the General Accounting Office with the recommendation of the Real Estate Claims Board of the Office, Chief of Engineers, War Department, that it be disallowed. The General Accounting Office concurred in the recommendation of the Real Estate Claims Board and by settlement certificate dated October 15. 1945, advised the claimants that the claim had been disallowed.

H. R. 3755 embodies but a repetition of the claim of April 6, 1945, except that the amount claimed has been increased. No reason for the increase has been assigned by the claimants, who have fixed the amount therein by taking the arbitrary figure of $100,000 and deducting therefrom the amount of $6,840 heretofore paid to them by the Government under the supplemental agreement mentioned above.

It has been found both by the War Department and the General Accounting Office that the lease of June 20, 1942, was fairly entered upon and was conclusive as to the rent to which the claimants are entitled. With respect to the damage to the property and alleged depreciation in value resulting therefrom, Mrs. Hayes was fully reimbursed therefor under the supplemental agreement of December 28, 1944, to which she voluntarily agreed and, consequently, it is the view of this Department that the Government is under no additional obligation in this regard. The claimants' alleged mental suffering and losses of opportunities to sell the property at a profit are matters which are highly speculative and incapable of determination.

In view of the foregoing it is the considered view of this Department that there is no merit to the claim upon which H. R. 3755 is based and, consequently, the enactment of the measure is not recommended.

There would be no fiscal effect resulting from the passage of the bill other than the payment of the amount specified therein and such minor expenses as might be required in the making of such payment.

The Bureau of the Budget advises that there is no objection to the submission of this report.

Sincerely yours,

HOWARD C. PETERSEN,
Acting Secretary of War.

STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF H. R. 4564 (81ST CONG., 1ST SESS.)

H. R. 4564 is a private bill whose purpose is to compensate the owners of certain real property in Los Angeles, Calif., for damage done to that property by the United States Army while it was in occupancy from June 20, 1942, to December 29, 1944. The property was taken by the Army without the knowledge or consent of the owners; it was so used by the Army that it was virtually ruined for sale as a site for residences, for which it is particularly suited; its value has been greatly decreased, if indeed it is marketable at all; and the owners have never been compensated by even a single penny for the damage done to the property. This statement will set forth the facts in chronological sequence.