paid from emergency-relief funds will be blanketed into Classified Civil Service under rule II, section 6, of the Civil Service Rules and Regulations.

RELATION OF NUMBER OF CASES AND WORK OF DIVISION TO ESTIMATES FOR 1940

Mr. RABAUT. I note from exhibit 8 that the number of cases pending as of January 1, 1938, was 15,560.

Mr. COLLETT. Yes, sir.

Mr. RABAUT. Whereas the number of cases pending on the list of January 1939 was 7,690.

Mr. COLLETT. Yes, sir.

Mr. RABAUT. Now, I notice in the appropriation that the original amount available in 1939 was $2,613,004, and that the anticipated reduction in the amount is $813,004.

Mr. COLLETT. Yes, sir.

Mr. RABAUT. There is no relation between the reduction in the figure and the reduction in the cases.

Mr. COLLETT. Well, I do not think that is a fair criterion.

Mr. RABAUT. What we want is an explanation of that.
Mr. COLLETT. All right.

On January 1, 1938, there was a total of 15,560 matters pending; on January 1, 1939, there were only 7,690-a decrease of more than 50 percent, indicating that the Division is bringing its work into a very nearly current condition and eliminating the delays which plague real-property proceedings. The Department of Agriculture, for example, reports that never before have land acquisitions proceeded with such dispatch. Indeed, during the summer, the Division acquired lands for the emergency building program in a period of weeks, and even days in some instances.

But, while the total indicates that we have cut our unfinished business in half, public lands and related matters, as well as Indian cases, have increased slightly-from 829 to 938, or an increase of about 100 cases. While 666 cases of these classes were concluded during the year, 775 new cases were received. The explanation lies in the facts that, as soon as the Department of Justice began to push this class of litigation, the Interior Department came forward with an even greater volume of new cases; and that the supervision of eviction proceedings was added to the duties of the Division during the year and grouped with these cases.

The mortgage and collection cases, on the other hand, have been reduced from 3,846 cases to 1,908-a decrease of 50 percent. While, in this category, there were 4,095 new cases during the year; 6,033 cases were concluded.

Due to over a thousand new Resettlement Administration cases, the condemnation figures have increased from 1,870 to 2,115 cases. During the year 1,823 new cases were received and 1,578 were closed. The total of pending cases will decrease shortly with the conclusion of the Resettlement cases, but flood control, forestry, and other newly initiated programs or projects may make it impossible to cut down the total soon.

In the field of legislation, office matters, and miscellaneous nonlitigated items, 881 came into the Division and 913 were closed, leaving

only 16 pending. The present session of Congress will probably furnish an equal volume. Our problem will be to find ways to dispose of work as it comes into the Division.

Finally, in the field of voluntary purchases of land, 8,967 tracts were pending on January 1, 1938, and only 2,713 at the opening of the new year-a reduction to less than one-third of the former load of unfinished business. During the year 6,937 new matters were submitted, but 13,191 matters were concluded.

In short, a total of 14,511 new matters of all kinds came before the Division during the year, but the Division disposed of 22,381 matters thus cutting the load of the grand total unfinished business from 15,560 on January 1, 1938, to 7,690 on January 1, 1939.

From January 1, 1938, to January 1, 1939, a total of 730 parcels of urban property and 4,508,496 acres of rural property was acquired for various Federal activities, by purchase or condemnation, at a total purchase price of $41,867,807.37.

I might state this, too: As I stated a while ago, we have our matters up to within 30 days, and that requires more active work.. It keeps our men busier, but it keeps everybody satisfied. We are keeping the public at large better contented, we are doing our work better, and protecting the public interest better by doing this than under the old slipshod way. It requires a larger personnel to do that, but it is much more effective, and the Government is being better served in that way.

Mr. RABAUT. You feel that you have this reduced to a point beyond which you ought not to go?

Mr. COLLETT. Yes; I think so. And, by the way, the Budget has approved this. We would like to have this understood, that we realize this is an emergency. We are cutting our appropriation down this year and if the work next year will fall off-which we do. not expect-we will expect to reduce our appropriation.

ACQUIRING OF SOUND COMMERCIAL TITLE TO LANDS

I wonder if I may bring up one other matter? I understood that there had been proposed here some sort of an amendment that might be suggested with reference to the acquiring of a sound commercial title. I think Judge Tarver was interested in that. I have a statement here that I would like to submit on that, that would take care of our position, and if this committee is seriously considering adopting that amendment, we would really like to be heard, because we feel it is most important and is really upsetting a precedent of some 90 years.

Mr. RABAUT. We made a request yesterday of the Attorney Gen-eral, or the Attorney General made us a promise, to send up here a statement for the record on this very matter to which you have just made reference.

Mr. STEFAN. Is your statement the result of the request of the Attorney General following our discussion on this particular matter yesterday?

Mr. COLLETT. Yes: this is it.

Mr. RABAUT. We will receive the statement.

(The statement referred to is as follows:)

The proposed amendment to the appropriation bill of the Department of Justice, which reads as follows:

"Provided, That none of the funds herein appropriated shall be used in the examination and curing of titles to lands purchased at prices of $20 or less per acre, except for such examinations and curative legal proceedings as may be necessary to assure the acquisition by the United States of sound commercial title."

is subject to certain objections which the Department believes should be carefully considered by the subcommittee.

It is assumed that the purpose of this amendment is to eliminate supposed delay in the examination of titles by the Department of Justice occasioned, it is apparently claimed, by the Department's setting up extremely rigid and strict requirements for the approval of title. If this assumption is correct, it should be pointed out to the subcommittee that the Department has not set up unduly strict requirements and has not unduly delayed the acquisition of title to such lands. In his connection I submit herewith two statements, one of which shows that in the examination of titles to such lands acquired by direct purchase there has been no undue delay in the title-examination work of the Department, and the other of which indicates that condemnation proceedings have been handled with expedition. It is therefore believed that the proposed amendment is based upon a misapprehension of the actual situation.

The second point which should be made clear to the subcommittee is that the opinion of the Attorney General is required under the provisions of section 355 of the Revised Statutes, which reads, so far as pertinent here, as follows:

"No public money shall be expended upon any site or land purchased by the United States for the purposes of erecting thereon any armory, arsenal, fort, fortification, navy yard, customhouse, lighthouse, or other public building of any kind whatever, until the written opinion of the Attorney General shall be had in favor of the validity of the title

This statute was taken from the resolution of 1841 and has been on the books for nearly a hundred years without any substantial change. Over a long period of years the rulings of the financial officers of the Government, including the Comptroller General, have reached substantially the result that the Attorney General is required to pass upon the title to virtually all lands acquired by the United States except where provision has been made specifically to the contrary in the case of certain land acquisitions. The proposed amendment would result, so far as lands worth $20 or less per acre are concerned, in suspending the operations of section 355 during the period of this appropriation, if the effect of the proposed amendment is to permit the acceptance of titles which have not heretofore been acceptable. Whether there should be a relaxation in the requirements laid down by section 355 of the Revised Statutes is, of course, a question upon which careful study and thought should be given, and the various agencies acquiring land for the United States should be consulted. The Department of Justice has been engaged during the last few months in an intensive study of this problem, and various land-acquiring agencies of the Government have been consulted regarding the matter. This study is still in process and the purpose in mind is to submit to the Congress proposed amendments to section 355, both on the question of title approval and on the question of exclusive jurisdiction over the land in the United States. It would seem advisable, therefore, that the problem should be studied directly with reference to the fundamental statute involved in connection with land acquisitions and title and jurisdiction, rather than in the indirect fashion as here proposed. Furthermore, such a plan would avoid confusion which would necessarily result among the various departments and agencies, particularly the Treasury Department and the General Accounting Office, in connection with the approval of expenditures.

The purpose and effect of the proposed amendment is not fully apparent. It is suggested that, before taking further action in connection with the proposed amendment, because of its importance and far-reaching effect it would be beneficial to all parties concerned to have a clear exposition of its objects for further consideration. In any event, the Department asks for an opportunity to furnish a further statement in case the subcommittee is inclined to give this proposed -amendment or any similar amendment favorable consideration.

Mr. COLLETT. I wonder if I might ask a few questions. We are somewhat concerned in the Department with reference to the mean

ing of the proposed amendment, and we take it that there is no disposition on the part of this committee to take the examination of titles away from the Department of Justice. That is not the intent of the amendment. I assume that nobody wants to take away from the Department of Justice now the examination of titles to lands, for the Government.

In other words, probably under the reorganization plan, all titles will be vested-that is, the examination of them-in the Attorney General, because we have to defend them if anything goes wrong. Mr. RABAUT. Did you feel that there was anything in this amendment that you had to be fearful of?

Mr. COLLETT. Yes; there might be. What we would like to do is this. Of course, we want to go along, but we would like to show that in our opinion this would be detrimental. For instance, it says here:

*

None of the funds herein appropriated shall be used in the examination and curing of titles to lands purchased at prices of $20 or less per acre, You see, under certain circumstances, the acquiring agencies go out and purchase land and need not submit it to us for the examination of title. They may do it themselves.

During the period from November 1935 to April 1936, the average time that an abstract from the Forest Service was in the Department of Justice was 11.9 days. During the time from November 1938 to April 1939, the average period was 14.4 days. Since we have reorganized the division, the time now is from 8 to 9 days. That is the time we keep them over in our division.

Mr. CARTER. That length of time applies to the period that they are in the Washington office?

Mr. COLLETT. That is right.

Mr. CARTER. It does not apply to the time that they are in some assistant United States attorney's office?

Mr. COLLETT. That is right. Those are the special field men. Mr. CARTER. I do not mean the special field man; I mean the regular United States attorney.

Mr. COLLETT. He does not handle anything but regular building sites. We have field men to handle all other titles.

Mr. RABAUT. Gentlemen, if there is nothing further, we are very happy to have had you with us and are very much impressed with your sincerity.

Mr. COLLETT. Thank you, sir.

MONDAY, MAY 8, 1939.

VETERANS' INSURANCE LITIGATION DIVISION

(CONTINUED)

Mr. MCMILLAN. Judge Martin, the other day when you were before the committee, I think at that time you went into the question of the increase of $30,000, and gave us a break-down of just how that increase was to be used, which appears, I believe, on page 138 of your justifications.

Judge MARTIN. Yes, sir.

Mr. MCMILLAN. Now, Judge, I asked you the other day to submit for the committee a table giving us a record of your judgments and

147644-39-15

of claims, and so forth. I find here on exhibit C a record of judgments for plaintiffs from September 11, 1933, to April 1, 1939. You have that break-down made up according to the fiscal years, number of cases, amount paid, and estimated additional liability in each case, and under the general head of judgments you give adjusted cases, stipulated judgments, and compromise judgments. I want to ask you now: What do you mean when you say admitted additional liability in each of these cases, as to the character of cases?

Judge MARTIN. Before answering that question, I would like to say this, that, in respect to your inquiry we had made up several tables and several records of judgments of all kinds of actions and proceedings in the Bureau, of which we have copies here which were made in the office and which I would be glad to distribute to the committee.

Mr. MCMILLAN. For the information of the committee I should be glad if you would give them a copy of exhibit C and a copy of exhibit F.

Judge MARTIN. I was going to ask if the chairman would permit me to submit a few remarks which would be very broad in reference to exhibits A and B, and then come to exhibit C. I think an explanation of A and B before coming to exhibit C may throw a little light on what I may say later.

Mr. MCMILLAN. All right.

Judge MARTIN. Of course, we have gone over records with the greatest of detail and these figures which I shall give you are absolutely accurate, insofar as it is possible to make them so.

Mr. MCMILLAN. Yes.

RECORD OF CASE LITIGATION AND COMPROMISE OF THE DIVISION

Judge MARTIN. From exhibit A it appears that up to July 1, 1938, we had tried in district courts 2,823 cases, of which the Government won 1,816 and lost 1,007. In other words, the Government won by final judgment 64 percent and lost 36 percent in the district courts.

In the court of appeals we tried 580 cases, won 408 and lost 172. In other words, we won 70 percent and lost 30 percent of our cases. I might say for the benefit of members of the committee that our office handles every one of these cases in the court of appeals and nearly every one of them in the district courts.

In the Supreme Court we had 17 cases that were handled by our office under the direction of the Assistant Solicitor General and we won 11 and lost 6 of those. In other words, we won 65 percent and lost 35 percent of those cases.

Including dismissals of cases in district courts on final judgment during the period since the Bureau was organized we have won 10,133 and lost 1,185 cases. In other words, we have won exactly 90 percent and lost 10 percent.

Mr. MCMILLAN. That information is shown on exhibit A?
Judge MARTIN. That is right.

Mr. MCMILLAN. For the record. I will say that exhibit A is a record of court actions July 1, 1933, to April 1, 1939, and it shows the total number of cases won and the total number of cases lost. You have won 90 percent and lost 10 percent of your cases.