that apparently the bill came within the provisions of the Federal Tort Claims Act, the basis of the claim having arisen subsequent to January 1, 1945, and the House sponsor of the bill was so advised. At that time, there remained but 11 days within which claimants might be notified and institute suit under the provisions of the Federal Tort Claims Act. * The statute of limitations has now run against any action under the Federal Tort Claims Act. Therefore (and since August 1, 1947), H. R. 1781 is not a bill "for personal injuries for which suit may be instituted under the Federal Tort Claims Act." Under the provisions of section 131 of the Legislative Reorganization Act of 1946, this bill should not now be subject to a point of order in the Senate; its consideration in either House of Congress is not interdicted; and there is no reason why the Senate committee may not act on the bill. Therefore, in reporting this bill favorably to the Senate, the committee is not departing from its regular policy of not recommending bills which arise out of a tort action accruing subsequent to January 1, 1945 but is, rather, following the policy adopted in the case of the bill H. R. 986, reported favorably on March 15, 1948, was approved by the Senate March 29, 1948, and is now Private Law 224, Eightieth Congress, second session. DEPARTMENTAL OBJECTIONS The Navy Department, in its letter of September 20, 1946, which is attached at the end of this report and as a part hereof, opposed enactment of this proposed legislation on the following grounds: (1) That suit should have been filed under the Federal Tort Claims Act; (2) That it was possible for the owner to purchase insurance against such a happening for some time prior to the accident; (3) That the Navy had caused mines to be sown in this area but that it is also true that the mine, if it was a mine, might have been left there as the result of enemy intrusion in the early days of the war. Considering these objections in order, it is the view of the com mittee: (1) That in view of the action taken by the House of Representatives the claimants, as laymen, were not adequately advised of their rights under the Federal Tort Claims Act and would be unfairly deprived of their day in court if this bill should be turned down on a technicality. Furthermore, that, as referred to above, consideration of and action on this measure by the committee or by the Senate is not now banned under the provisions of the Legislative Reorganization Act of 1946. (2) That the question of insurance is entirely immaterial, especially under the standard laid down in the Federal Tort Claims Act, which makes the Government liable "under circumstances where the United States, if a private person, would be liable to the claimant." If this claim lay between private individuals, the question of insurance would not be involved, though an insurer who had paid a damage claim might be subrogated to the right of the claimant. (3) That the Congress is entitled to, and should, consider the probabilities of this case, as a jury would; and that the most probable and, in fact, the only logical explanation for what occurred is that the trawler Joyce struck a mine which had originally been sown in this area of the ocean by the Navy. Many thousands of such mines were. so sown, and no evidence whatsover has been presented to the committee indicating that any mines were placed there as the result of enemy action; so that the suggestion that the trawler struck an enemy mine remains only that, a purely hypothetical suggestion. The House report contains full text of depositions and affidavits, indicating that the amounts set forth in this proposed legislation are reasonable amounts to compensate the claimants for the damage they have sustained; and such depositions and affidavits, therefore, need not be reprinted. The report of the Navy Department, previously referred to, is as follows: Hon. DAN R. McGEHEE, NAVY DEPARTMENT, OFFICE OF THE JUDGE ADVOCATE GENERAL, Chairman of the Committee on Claims, House of Representatives. MY DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: The bill H. R. 5153, for the relief of Annie L. Taylor and William Benjamin Taylor, was referred by your committee to the Navy Department with a request for a report thereon. The purpose of the bill is to authorize and direct the Secretary of the Treasury to pay the following sums: (1) $16,590 to Annie L. Taylor, of Seaford, Va., in full settlement of all claims on account of the loss of the fishing trawler Joyce and equipment and cash on board when sunk; (2) $625 to Capt. William B. Taylor, of Seaford, Va., in full settlement of all claims on account of personal property damage sustained by him in the loss of the fishing trawler Joyce. Both of these claims were said to have been sustained when the fishing trawler Joyce was blown up and sunk as a result of contact with a mine or obstruction on August 22, 1945, near Ocean City, Md. A summary of the facts developed in the investigation made by the Navy Department in this matter follows: "On August 22, 1945, at approximately 12:30 p. m., the Joyce was trawling from shallow to deep water in a position about one-half mile northwest of Fenwick Island No. 2 bell buoy (latitude 38°26'30" N., longitude 74°59'18" W.) when an underwater explosion occurred. The vessel's net was then being held on the bottom by a weighted chain. Members of the crew said that the object which exploded was not observed. The explosion was described as a column of water rising to a height of about 150 to 200 feet and at a distance of approximately 150 to 200 feet from the vessel. The Joyce was blown about 25 feet in the air, according to the statement of her captain, and sank within 1 minute. "The mine depot at Yorktown, Va., sent an expert to Seaford, Va., to interview the captain of the Joyce, William B. Taylor, and from this interview the conclusion was reached that the net had fouled a depth charge in shallow water and dragged it into deeper water thereby causing the explosion due to the fact that the depth charge was probably set to explode at a depth of about 50 feet. Depth charges have been dropped in this vicinity on more than one occasion but no record appears on one having been dropped at this particular location. In 1942, a 250pound bomb was dropped in this approximate location with what is believed to have been a setting to explode at a depth of 25 feet. "No injuries were received by the crew of the Joyce except superficial injuries by the captain of the vessel. (Letter from Commandant's Liaison Group, Fourth Naval District, Cape May, NJ, file A6-8/S76-1, dated August 24, 1945, to the Commandant, Fourth Naval District.)" From these facts, the Navy Department was unable to determine the cause of the explosion, and at this date there is little or no probability of developing more definite findings. The physical circumstances suggest that what occurred was the explosion of a mine. This mine could have been laid by the Navy or War Department or the enemy in its operations off the Atlantic coast since it is known that the enemy had mined entrances to several American ports. The enemy operations, however, occurred in the earlier stages of the war. On the other hand, the investigation that has been made does not indicate any fault or responsibility on the part of the Navy Department. The bill H. R. 5153 does not disclose whether suit is being maintained by the owners or whether it represents a subrogated claim asserted by underwriters who may have paid for the loss of the vessel. However, a letter written by the Honorable Schulyer Otis Bland, chairman of the Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries, House of Representatives, to Chief Admiralty Officer, Office of the Judge Advocate General of the Navy, dated November 30, 1945, does indicate that Mrs. Annie L. Taylor is in financial difficulties as a result of receiving no compensation for the loss of this vessel. It is thought that it would be of assistance to the committee to know the situation with respect to the ability of the owner of the Joyce to have obtained warrisk insurance from the War Shipping Administration which was written on American vessels. Inquiry was made of the War Shipping Administration and its response, letter dated July 12, 1946, advised that: (1) the War Shipping Administration has no record of any loss of the trawler Joyce; (2) the owner of the Joyce could have obtained war-risk insurance in the commercial market at a rate of oneeighth of 1 percent which would have provided reimbursement in the event of loss due to floating and/or stationary mines whether derelict or not; but the War Shipping Administration would not have written this coverage because, on or about August 22, 1945, this coverage was procurable in the commercial market. Originally, claim was made against the Navy Department in this matter. It was, however, a situation where settlement could not be made under the act of July 3, 1944 (58 Stat. 726; 46 U. S. C. 797), since it is not a case of damage by a naval vessel. Similarly, suit could not be maintained against the United States under the Public Vessels Act of March 3, 1925 (43 Stat. 1112; 46 U. S. C. 781). Inquiry has also been made as to the Coast Guard's records in the matter. The only fact found from these records to enlarge upon the report of the investigation of the Navy Department is that "The explosion occurred about from 150 to 175 feet astern of the fishing trawler Joyce. * *"" (Letter, group, Ocean City, Md., file CG 651, August 24, 1945). The situation, therefore, is one which cannot be resolved definitely. The relative number of mines laid would suggest an inference that the Joyce came into contact with an American mine, which had been accidentally set adrift, but such conclusion is one that cannot be absolutely established. Accordingly, the Navy Department is unable to state categorically whether the situation warrants relief. It is pointed out, however, that there is no information available to the Navy Department on which to base a valuation of the Joyce or the amount which should be allowed should relief be granted. The Navy Department has been advised by the Bureau of the Budget that in view of the provisions of the Legislative Reorganization Act of 1946 relating to private relief bills (sec. 131) and providing authority for the adjudication of tort claims accruing on or after January 1, 1945 (secs. 401-424, inclusive), a special act, such as proposed in this case, would not appear appropriate. For the Secretary of the Navy. Respectfully yours, O. S. COLCLOUGH, Rear Admiral, United States Navy, O 80TH CONGRESS 2d Session SENATE { REPORT No. 1475 DELAWARE FRUIT GROWERS JUNE 4 (legislative day, JUNE 1), 1948.-Ordered to be printed Mr. WILEY, from the Committee on the Judiciary, submitted the following REPORT [To accompany H. R. 2684] The Committee on the Judiciary, to whom was referred the bill (H. R. 2684) for the relief of sundry fruit growers of the State of Delaware who sustained losses as the result of the fumigation of apples with methyl bromide in order to comply with the requirements of the United States Department of Agriculture relating to the Japanese beetle quarantine, having considered the same, report favorably thereon without amendment and recommend that the bill do pass. PURPOSE The purpose of this proposed legislation is to provide for the payment of a total of approximately $48,000, in varying amounts, to 13 named fruit growers in the State of Delaware, in full satisfaction of their claims against the United States for losses sustained as the result of the fumigation of apples in order to comply with the requirements of the Department of Agriculture. Beneficiaries of the proposed legislation, and the amount which would be paid to each, are: C. L. Cannon, of Bridgeville, Del., $1,197.27; W. H. Chandler, of Milton, Del., $16,618.63; C. F. Fifer, of Wyoming, Del., $2,886.90; W. S. Jones, of Bridgeville, Del., $2,436.32; E. L. Kratz, of Greenwood, Del., $379.52; Lord Bros., of Dover, Del., $2,290.33; Lord & Rickards, of Dover, Del., $930.08; L. C. Newton, of Bridgeville, Del., $3,773.03; O. A. Newton & Son, of Bridgeville, Del., $1,968.07; Frank W. Richardson, of Camden, Del., $4,095.75; George B. Ruos & Son, of Bridgeville, Del., $3,742.66; T. S. Smith & Sons, of Bridgeville, Del., $6,751.26; and Townsend's, Inc., of Millsboro, Del., $1,161.96; in all, $48,231.78. STATEMENT OF FACTS In connection with its fight against the spread of the Japanese beetle, the Department of Agriculture issued certain regulations preventing the shipment of apples out of a certain area in the State of Delaware, except under specified conditions. One of these conditions was fumigation in accordance with a procedure, and with the use of a specified fumigant, named by the Department. The fumigant in question had not been tested on the type of apples shipped by the claimants, and after fumigation the apples so shipped became inedible, as a result of which the shippers sustained heavy losses. In all, 36 carloads of apples, containing approximately 18,900 bushels, which had been sold on order for $69,049.40 were rejected as a result of damage from fumigation, and had to be sold for salvage value. In its report on this proposed legislation, the Department of Agriculture has contended that the growers and other interested parties working through the University of Delaware agricultural experiment station were warned that no guaranties were made as to the effect of the treatment on the fruit, and that the suggestion was made that test treatments to small lots should be made prior to treating large lots. On the other hand, the growers as well as the representatives of the State horticultural agency, contend that they followed the test prescribed by the Department of Agriculture insofar as the test procedure was made known to them, and that, based on the test made, no harm should come to the larger shipments of apples. The Department of Agriculture has not supported its contentions with any evidence presented to the committee. On the other hand, the growers and the State horticultural agency have produced numerous statements and affidavits that they received no warning, that they were assured by representatives of the Department of Agriculture that the fumigant was harmless, and that they were, in effect, told that this was a required procedure and should be adopted. The Department of Justice, in its report on this legislation, has stated that there is so much conflict in the available evidence as to whether or not precautionary measures recommended by the Department were brought to the attention of the growers, that if the case should be tried in a State court the question would be decided by a jury; and the Department of Justice points out that in the case of a private claim bill, the Congress stands in the position of a jury. Therefore, the Department states, it prefers not to make a recommendation with respect to enactment of this legislation. In other words, the Department of Justice has been unable to sustain the recommendation of the Department of Agriculture or the contentions of the latter Department. After a careful study of all the facts, so far as made known to the committee, it is concluded that these claims are just, that the proximate cause of the damage sustained by these growers was the negligence of agents of the Department of Agriculture, and that this proposed legislation should be approved. The House report on this proposed legislation (H. Rept. No. 1394, 80th Cong., 2d sess.) included the full text of the report from the |