CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - HOUSE

Mr. AUCHINCLOSS. Mr. Speaker,

whenever a Member of Congress is honored by receiving recognition from an

institution of learning, I feel that we

all share in such an honor and so it is

with great pride that I announce to our

Members that our colleague, GORDON

CANFIELD, has received such recognition

from the Paterson State College which

has conferred on him the honorary degree of doctor of letters. The thought

which prompted such an action is adequately expressed in the citation which

accompanied the award and It reads as

follows:

GORDON CANFIELD

Representative GORDON CANFILD, honored

as he already has been by his congressional

colleagues, his party, his constituents, and by

many other groups, stands as a symbol of

excellence. In the comments of all those

who have praised him, there is singular

agreement concerning the high quality of

his service to Nation, State, district, and

constituents. In his longe career in the Congress of the United States, he has come to personify the ideal public servant.

His record of voting and acting on principle, the vigor with which he has fought for

all the things in which he believes, his willingness to spend unlimited time and energy

in the interests of those whom he has

served, the courtesy and grace with which

he has listened to all who have sought his

ear-these have lifted him, stanch partisan

though he has been, so far above the level

of partisan politics that he has been hailed

widely as an unbeatable champion. And a true champion he is, a champion of the

people, defender of their interests, a servant

of their needs.

It is peculiarly fitting that an institution

concerned primarily with preparing young

people for public service should honor Representative CANFEL. His high principles,

his dedication to the ideal of service, his

sound Judgment, his capacity for hard work,

his interest in people, his compassion-these

and other fine qualities to be found in his

record, his character, his personality, make

him a perfect model for all who would serve

the people by teaching. In honoring GORDON

CANJIELD, Paterson State College brings

honor to itself and to the teaching profession as a whole. MARION E. SHEA,

President of the College.

WAYNE, N.J., June 8,1960.

SUBCOMMI'IEE ON COMMUNICATIONS AND POWER OF COMMITTEE ON INTERSTATE AND FOREIGN COMMERCE

Mr. ALBErnT. Mr. Speaker, I ask

unanimous consent that the Subcommittee on Communications and Power

of the Committee on Interstate and

Foreign Commerce have permission to

sit during general debate today.

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, it is so ordered.

There was no objection.

TITLE 28, "JUDICIARY AND JUDICIAL PROCEDURE"-VETO MESSAGE FROM THE PRESIDENT OF

THE UNITED STATES (H. DOC.

NO. 415)

The SPEAKER pro tempore laid before the House the following veto message from the President of the United

States.

To the House of Representatives:

I return herewith, without my approval, H.R. 7577, "To amend title 28,

entitled 'Judiciary and Judicial Procedure,' of the United States Code to provide for the defense of suits against

Federal employees arising out of their

operation of motor vehicles in the scope

of their employment, and for other purposes."

As originally introduced, this legislation provided that when a Government

driver is sued in a State court on a claim

resulting from his operation of a motor

vehicle while acting within the scope of

his employment, such action should be

removed to the appropriate United

States district court. There it would

become an action against the United

States under the Federal Tort Claims

Act and be the plaintiff's exclusive judicial remedy. Government drivers would

thus cease to be defendants and would

be relieved of personal liability in such

cases. These are desirable objectives.

The bill was amended, however, to require the consent of the plaintiff before

any such action could be removed to a

Federal court. This amendment is unfortunate, for any plaintiff, by refusing

to give his consent, could prevent the

conversion of the action to one under

the Federal Tort Claims Act and thus

thwart the sound purposes of the original bill. The amendment also makes

the bill inconsistent internally and

could give rise to needless litigation.

Although unwilling, therefore, to approve this bill, I would gladly sign new

legislation corresponding to H.R. 7577

as first passed by the House of Representatives.

DWIGHT D. EISENHOWER.

THE WHITE HOUSE, June 11, 1960.

The SPEAKER pro tempore. The objections of the President will be spread

at large upon the Journal and, without

objection, the bill and message will be

referred to the Committee on the Judiciary and ordered to be printed.

There was no objection.

OUR LADY OF THE LAKE CHURCHVETO MESSAGE FROM THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES (H.

DOC. NO. 414)

The SPEAKER pro tempore laid before the House the following veto message from the President of the United

States:

To the House of Representatives:

I return herewith, without my approval, H.R. 5150, "For the relief of Our

Lady of the Lake Church."

The bill would direct a refund to Our

Lady of the Lake Church, Mandeville,

La., of $1,284.17 in customs duties assessed on organ boarding imported from

Germany. In support of the refund, it

is asserted that the organ boarding was

denied free entry despite its handcarved panels which constitute original

sculptures of the type granted duty-free

status under applicable law.

The entry free of duty of certain

sculptures is permitted, but an express

provision of the applicable law excludes

any articles of utility. The Bureau of

Customs has determined that the organ

boarding in question is an article of

utility within the meaning of the statute,

and therefore does not meet the requirements for free entry.

The record contains no reason for

granting special legislative relief in this

case other than the belief that the law

has been misinterpreted. Special legislation is not needed, however, in cases

where the law may have been misinterpreted. General law provides procedures

by which importers may challenge administratively and in the courts, the Bureau of Customs' interpretations of the

laws relating to importation. The

church did not avail itself of these procedures.

The bill would, therefore, discriminate

in favor of a single importer who did not

take advantage of the available

remedies. Such a result would be unfair to other importers and would create

an unwise and unsound precedent.

In view of the foregoing, I am constrained to withhold my approval of H.R.

5150.

DWIGHT D. EISENHOWER.

THE WHITE HOUSE, June 11, 1960.

The SPEAKER pro tempore. The objections of the President will be spread

at large upon the Journal and, without

objection, the bill and message will be

referred to the Committee on the Judiciary and ordered to be printed.

There was no objection.

GRAND LODGE OF NORTH DAKOTA,

ANCIENT FREE AND ACCEPTED

MASONS-VETO MESSAGE FROM

THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED

STATES (H. DOC. NO. 416)

The SPEAKER pro tempore laid before the House the following veto message from the President of the United

States:

To the House of Representatives:

I return herewith, without my approval, H.R. 8417, "For the relief of

Grand Lodge of North Dakota, Ancient,

Free, and Accepted Masons."

The bill would direct a refund to the

Grand Lodge of North Dakota, Ancient,

Free, and Accepted Masons, of $1,155.26

in customs duties assessed on Masonic

jewels, consisting of insignia and emblems composed of metal and other material, imported from Canada. In support of the refund, it is asserted that

such jewels should have been granted

duty-free status under applicable law.

The entry free of duty of regalia and

gems is permitted for the use of a society

incorporated or established solely for religious, philosophical, educational, scientific, or literary purposes, or for the encouragement of the fine arts. The Bureau of Customs has determined, however, that fraternal organizations, such

as the Grand Lodge of North Dakota,

do not meet the requirements for free

entry.

No reason has been advanced for

granting special legislative relief in this

case other than the belief that the law

has been misinterpreted. If the law

1960 12455