CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - HOUSE

sent any equitable consideration which

warrants the direct gratuity award pro-"

posed. Unfortunately the procedural

reversal by the circuit court of appeals

has left the parties in the unsatisfactory

position which existed prior to the district court suit. The evidence in this

case is complex and controversial. I believe, therefore, that in fairness to Mrs.

McQuilkin she is entitled to a day in

court for decision of her claim, on its

merits, and I would be willing to approve

a jurisdictional enactment waiving the

bar of any statute of limitations.

DWIGHT D' EISENHOWER.

THE WHITE HOUSE, August 31, 1954.

S. H. PRATHER ET AL., H. R. 9357

H. R. 9357. I have withheld my approval from the bill (H. R. 9357) for the

relief of S. H. Prather, Mrs. Florence

Prather Penman, S. H. Prather, Jr.

The bill proposed to pay the sums of

$5,000 to S. H. Prather, $2,000 to Mrs.

Florence Prather Penman, and $1,000 to

S. H. Prather, Jr., for personal injuries

and property damages sustained at Quitman, Ga., as the result of a collision of

their family automobile with a car driven

by one Howard Hart, an alleged bootlegger. The committee report on this

bill (H. Rept. No. 2208) indicates that

the collision occurred on August 6, 1935,

when Hart was being pursued by an investigator of the Alcohol Tax Unit, Bureau of Internal Revenue, Treasury Department, and by a State officer. The

report of the Treasury Department embodied in the House report states that

the officers, while traveling at approximatetly 70 miles per hour, had pursued

the car for a distance of about 2 miles,

but had slowed down when Hart turned

into a dirt side street of the town of

Quitman, picked up speed to 75 miles

an hour, and collided with the Prather

car, which was proceeding at a lawful

rate of 20 to 25 miles per hour. Hart's

car contained approximately 43 gallons

of illicit whisky at the time.

The officers in this instance were actIng in the performance of their official

duties in attempting to apprehend persons who were violating the law in their

presence. The report of the special investigator of the Alcohol Tax Unit states

that Mr. Prather conceded when interviewed that the officers were doing their

duty and were without blame, "but that

he felt someone should compensate him

for the damages suffered," since the violators who had caused the wreck had no

financial responsibility.

The misfortune suffered by this family

as a result of the automobile accident,

for which they were in no manner responsible, is most lamentable. While it

is true the accident might not have happened if the law-enforcement officers

had not been pursuing the bootleggers,

there is nothing in the file to indicate

the law-enforcement officers were acting

negligently or were doing anything other

than their duty. Unfortunately, the

culprits legally and morally responsible

for the injuries cannot be made to respond in damages. Enactment of the

bill would constitute a gratuity and

would create a dangerous precedent

which might set in motion a chain of

endless requests for the payment of damages by the Government arising out

of accidents in which law-enforcement

officers may have been remotely involved. Accordingly, I am constrained to withhold my approval from the bill.

DWIGHT D. EISENHOWER.

THE WHITE HOUSE, August 31, 1954.

METROPOLITAN WASHINGTON AREA TRANSPORTATION, H. R. 2236

H. R. 2236. I have withheld my approval from H. R. 2236, entitled "An act

to provide for a Commission to regulate

the public transportation of passengers

by motor vehicle and street railroad

within the metropolitan area of Washington, D. C., and for the establishment

of a Metropolitan Washington Commission."

Title I of this enactment would establish a Washington Metropolitan Area

Transit Commission to regulate public

transportation by bus, streetcar, and

taxicab in the District of Columbia and

the counties of Montgomery and Prince

Georges in the State of Maryland. The

bill would grant to the proposed new

Commission, in strengthened form, most

of the powers now separately exercised

in this regard by the Interstate Commerce Commission and the Public Utilities Commissions of the State of Maryland and the District of Columbia.

Title II of the bill would create a temporary Metropolitan Washington Commission to study, investigate, and make

recommendations with regard to certain

aspects of the Washington metropolitan

area transportation problem.

The regulation of public transportation

in the greater Washington area must

contend with the growth of an integral

economic community spreading far beyond the boundaries of the District of

Columbia to include Montgomery and

Prince Georges Counties in Maryland

and Arlington and Fairfax Counties and

the cities of Alexandria and Falls Church

in Virginia. Within this community,

the daily travel of persons back and

forth across State lines has reached dimensions with which present facilities

cannot cope. Under these circumstances,

it is understandable that the present

division of responsibility for regulation

among four different agencies no longer

meets the needs of the area. This division of responsibility has contributed, as

it could not help but do, to the development of an inadequate system of public

transportation. The situation plainly

requires unification of regulatory authorities over public transportation

throughout the metropolitan area.

The present enactment, however, falls

substantially short of this objective. Its

failure to include the Virginia segment

of the metropolitan area within the jurisdiction of the proposed Commission

is a fundamental deficiency. Through

this omission of an integral and important part of the greater economic community, a system of fragmented and divided regulatory authority is continued.

What is worse, the Federal Government

is placed in the position of treating the

carriers and persons within one segment

of the area on a different and discriminatory basis from those in the remainder of the area. In the absence of any

substantial grounds for this differentiation, the measure is unacceptable even

as a temporary expedient.

This bill is also unsatisfactory because

It extends, without sufficient safeguards,

the authority of the Federal Government

to matters that have, hitherto, been considered as primarily the concern of the

District of Columbia and of the States.

The problem is difficult because the

urgency of need and the extent of Federal interest in the Nation's Capital both

argue for unification of regulatory authorities under Federal auspices, at least

for the time being. However, in any such

arrangement means must be found to

give adequate recognition to the rights

and responsibilities of the District and

of the States involved. Specifically, provision should be made to enable the

States of Maryland and Virginia and the

District of Columbia eventually to make

arrangements for the exercise of this

function under joint responsibility. In

this regard, it would appear desirable to

explore the feasibility of utilizing an interstate compact or other cooperative

arrangements in which the Federal Government would participate and the Federal interest would be fully protected.

In addition, every effort should be made

to minimize the impact of any new Commission upon the internal affairs of the

District of Columbia.

With respect to title II of the enactment, I agree that further study of metropolitan transportation problems is desirable. The primary mission assigned

to the Commission is related directly to

highway, bridge, and traffic problems.

In emphasizing this role rather than

consideration of mass transit problems,

the bill unnecessarily complicates relationships with the National Capital Planning Commission and the National Capital Regional Planning Council. I believe

that further consideration by the Congress will result in a more orderly allocation of responsibilities between the

Commission and these existing planning

agencies. Title II also establishes undesirable limitations governing the appointment and qualification of members

of the Commission.

I hope that the 84th Congress will

promptly enact a measure to unify regulatory authorities over public transportation and provide for a further transit

study with adequate coverage and recognition of State and District responsibilities. Since title I of this bill would not

have become fully effective until July 1,

1955, there need be no significant loss

of time in obtaining its objectives. Similarly, time did not permit the Congress

to provide funds for title II before adjournment. Therefore, since an appropriation cannot be made until after the

Congress convenes in January, little

time, if any, need be lost in the studies

which a revised title II would encompass.

DWIGHT D. EISENHOWER.

THE WHITE HOUSE, September 3, 1954.

MRS. ROSALINE SPAGNOLA, H. R. 2881

H. R. 2881. I have withheld my approval from H. R. 2881, a bill for the

relief of Mrs. Rosaline Spagnola.

This enrolled enactment would pay to

Mrs. Rosaline Spagnola the sum of

$675.50 as additional compensation on

account of the accidental death of her

1954 15567