court felt that the Piowatys had not received justice in the lower court. The opinion of the majority of the court did not discuss the merits of the Piowatys' case but was confined to a discussion of technical points of law. The Department of Agriculture has reported unfavorably upon the bill, as indicated by the report which is set out below. The adverse report apparently is based largely upon the adverse decisions of the Florida courts which have been referred to above. The committee, after reviewing all of the facts of the case, is of the opinion that the Piowatys should be relieved from their obligation to the Regional Agricultural Credit Corporation. The decision of the committee is based principally upon the considerable element of doubt which is raised by the fact that there was such a sharp division in the Supreme Court of Florida upon the merits of the Piowatys' case. The minority of the court apparently found that the Piowatys had practiced principles of good husbandry. The minority opinion said in part: It is conclusively shown that, in the cases now before us, respective farmers complied with every part of the contract and in their endeavor in this regard each lost considerably more money than the Government will lose when the balances claimed on these obligations are canceled. The committee is also much impressed by the fact that the Piowatys alone, among the approximately 50 growers of beans in Orange County, were denied the favorable action by the War Board for Orange County which would have resulted in relief from indebtedness to the Corporation. The report of the Department of Agriculture upon the bill is attached hereto and made a part of said report. Hon. ARTHUR Capper, DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, Chairman, Committee on Agriculture and Forestry, United States Senate. DEAR SENATOR: This is in reply to your request of April 21, 1948, for a report on S. 2524, a bill for the relief of Carl Piowaty and W. J. Piowaty. The bill would relieve Carl Piowaty and W. J. Piowaty from liability for the payment of (1) their indebtedness to the Regional Agricultural Credit Corporation of Washington, D. C., for war crop advances made to them by the Corporation; (2) the notes given by them to the Corporation evidencing such indebtedness; and (3) the judgments, including attorneys' fees and court costs, obtained by the Corporation against them for such indebtedness. The bill would direct the Secretary of Agriculture to have the notes canceled and the judgments satisfied. War crop advances of the character referred to in the bill were made by the Regional Agricultural Credit Corporation of Washington, D. C., in 1943 to finance the production of specified crops which had been designated by the Food Production Administration as being most urgently needed in increased quantities for the war effort. Those advances were made on special terms contained in the notes executed by the borrowers. Those terms provided, in substance, that if the county war board was satisfied that the borrower had used the funds advanced for the purpose of producing the crops and had diligently applied good husbandry to their production, then if the returns from the crops (including incentive payments) were insufficient to repay the advances in full, the Corporation would accept the amount of such returns in full satisfaction of the borrower's obligation and would cancel the remainder of his obligation In this way, the Corporation assumed the risk of loss through causes beyond the borrower's control. In the spring of 1943, the Corporation made advances of this character to Carl Piowaty and W. J. Piowaty in the sum of $4,225 each, for the purpose of producing and harvesting crons of beans near Zellwood, Orange County, Fla. Ultimately, Carl Piowaty repaid $263.93 received from the sale of his crop and $603.48 received as an incentive payment, leaving an unpaid principal balance of $3,357.59 on the advances to him; and W. J. Piowaty repaid $912.96 received from the sale of his crop and $603.48 received as an incentive payment, leaving an unpaid principal balance of $2,708.56 on the advances to him. In October 1943 both of these borrowers applied to the Corporation, through the Orange County War Board, for cancellation of the unpaid balance of their respective obligations. The war board, after investigation, found that these two borrowers had neglected the cultivation of their crops and recommended that they be required to repay their advances in full. The Corporation therefore denied their requests for cancellation, and the borrowers refused to make further payments. In that situation, the Corporation instituted suits against the two borrowers in the Circuit Court of Orange County, Fla., on May 23, 1945, for the unpaid balance of their obligations with interest, attorneys' fees, and costs. After several hearings before the circuit judge on legal issues, the case was tried before a jury on May 22 and 23, 1947. The jury brought in a verdict for the Corporation and against the defendants for the full amount claimed in each case, including attorneys' fees and costs. The defendants, in due time, moved for a new trial, and this motion was denied. They then appealed to the Supreme Court of Florida, and the lower court's judgment was sustained by the supreme court on February 13, 1948. An application on the part of the defendants for a rehearing was thereafter denied. The verdict and judgment against W. J. Piowaty was for $3,316.09 plus attorneys' fees of $431.60 and costs in the sum of $32.90, or a total of $3,780.59. The verdict and judgment against Carl Piowaty was for $4,077.78 plus attorneys' fees of $507.77 and costs in the amount of $35.50, or a total of $4,621.05. In view of all the circumstances, we see no reason why these two borrowers should be given special relief from the judgments against them. We recommend, therefore, that the bill S. 2524 not be enacted. The Bureau of the Budget has advised that it has no objection to the submission of this report. Sincerely yours, N. E. DODD, Acting Secretary. O 80TH CONGRESS 2d Session } SENATE {{No. 1713 REPORT PREVENTING RETROACTIVE CHECKAGE OF PAYMENTS ERRONEOUSLY MADE TO CERTAIN RETIRED OFFICERS OF THE NAVAL RESERVE JUNE 16 (legislative day, JUNE 15). 1948.-Ordered to be printed Mr. BALDWIN, from the Committee on Armed Services, submitted the following REPORT [To accompany S. 2810] The Committee on Armed Services, to whom was referred the bill (S. 2810) to prevent retroactive checkage of payments erroneously made to certain retired officers of the Naval Reserve, and for other purposes, having considered the same, report favorably thereon without amendment and recommend that the bill do pass. PURPOSE OF THE BILL The purpose of this bill is to relieve certain retired naval and marine officers from repaying amounts previously paid them and to restore them to the retired rolls. EXPLANATION OF THE BILL This bill covers four officers of the Navy and the Marine Corps who, prior to the outbreak of World War II, were on the honorary retired lists of their respective services. They were ordered to active duty during World War II and served throughout the war. By virtue of that service and other active Federal service which they had previously performed, they were qualified under the terms of Public Law 305 to be placed on the retired rolls in a pay status. This action was taken by the Navy Department. Subsequently, the Comptroller General ruled that no one who was on the honorary retired list was covered by Public Law 305. The effect of this decision was to remove these four officers from the retired rolls and make them liable to the repayment of the amounts they had received. This bill if enacted will restore them to the retired rolls and prevent their having to repay the money which they have previously been paid. They will not receive any pay between the effective date of this act and the date of the Comptroller General's decision. This bill was introduced at the request of the Navy Department. O 80TH CONGRESS 2d Session } SENATE {No. 1714 REPORT AUTHORIZING AN EXCHANGE OF LANDS AND INTERESTS THEREIN BETWEEN THE CITY OF SAN DIEGO, CALIF., AND THE UNITED STATES JUNE 16 (legislative day, JUNE 15), 1948.-Ordered to be printed Mr. SALTONSTALL, from the Committee on Armed Services, submitted the following REPORT [To accompany H. R. 6633) The Committee on Armed Services, to whom was referred the bill (H. R. 6633) to authorize an exchange of lands and interests therein between the city of San Diego, Calif., and the United States, and for other purposes, having considered the same, report favorably thereon with amendments and recommend that the bill as amended do pass. AMENDMENTS TO THE BILL Amend the bill as follows: on page 1, line 6, after the word "Secre cary," insert the following language: After receiving the written approval of the Attorney General as to the titles, eases, and other mutual conveyances connected therewith, On page 6, line 9, starting with word "and" delete balance of subection and insert in lieu thereof: nd shall cease to be used for a period of two years by any branch of the armed ervices of the United States for military or naval purposes, then and in that event, he said lease shall terminate, be canceled and be of no further effect, and the city hall have the immediate right to reoccupy said lands.'; and PURPOSE OF THE BILL The purpose of this bill is to authorize exchange of lands and interest herein between the United States and the city of San Diego, Calif. EXPLANATION OF THE BILL The Navy is presently renting various parcels of land from the ty of San Diego. At present many of the rentals for such property e purely nominal but the city of San Diego intends to start charging |