CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - HOUSE

obscenity passed while it was on -its

route through the mails. Thus, wherever sufficient and legally admissible

evidence could be gathered, there the

purveyor could be prosecuted. The prac.

tical advantages to such a law appear

obvious to all of us, particularly if we

bear in mind that most of these smut

dealers are fly-by-night operators, here

today, gone tomorrow, disappearing as

fast as they appear, changing their

names as rapidly as a chameleon

changes its colors, and hence, difficult

to track down.

But, Mr. Speaker, as H. R. 6239 was

torpedoed in the Senate, the broadened

venue provision is absent. If insufficient

evidence could be gathered to support a

prosecution in the Federal district of

mailing or receipt, or if an overworked

grand jury could not attend to the matter in time, or if for any other reason

an indictment and prosecution could not

be speedily secured in one of those Federal districts, the smut dealer would be

perfectly free to continue his operations,

notwithstanding that other evidence in

another Federal district might be readily

available to support an indictment and

prosecution. Furthermore, the absence

of a criminal penalty applicable to car-

-riage of the mails introduces the possibility of doubt that deposit, carriage,

and delivery of the mails are one continuous offense.

Thus, Mr. Speaker, it is clear that the

venue provisions of our bill, which the

Senate struck out completely, are of

great significance. I hope my colleagues

who are not lawyers will understand the

,basis for my concern, and will not think

I am merely attempting to be legalistic

or pedantic.

Mr. Speaker, on July 27, 1956, I first

introduced House Resolution 652, 84th

Congress, 2d session, to create a select

committee "to conduct a full and complete investigation and study (1) to determine the extent to which pornographic materials are being furnished

to members of the armed services of

the United States; (2) to determine the

extent to which pornographic materials are being imported into the United

States from foreign countries; (3) to

determine the extent of traffic of pornographic materials through the United

States mails and by other transportation methods; (4) to determine the adequacy of existing laws to prevent publication, dissemination and distribution

of pornographic materials; (5) to make

such recommendations as the select

committee shall deem advisable, and (6)

to prepare such legislation as may be

considered appropriate to carry out such

recommendations."

On January 3, 1957, I reintroduced

my resolution as House Resolution 38,

85th Congress, 1st session. From these

resolutions, and from the efforts of some

of my colleagues, there developed several bills which were referred to Subcommittee No. 1, Committee on the

Judiciary, upon which I served as the

senior Republican member. The testimony which we held proved conclusively

that tremendous amounts of pornography are being daily transmitted

through the mails, directed mostly to

boys and girls whose young minds must

CIV-983

inevitably be corrupted as a result of

their regularly reading and viewing such

vile material.

Mr. Speaker, on several occasions I

.have gone down to the Post Office Department, and I have talked about this

growing problem with the General

Counsel and with attorneys and investigators on the headquarters staff of the

Post Office Department. I can tell you

now, Mr. Speaker, that as the father of

.three children I could not be more in-

•dignant when I peruse such obscenity,

and I may say, as one who has served

in the Army and who has traveled over

a good part of the world, that I have

-never seen anything more shocking

.than some of the pictures and motion

pictures which the General Counsel of

-the Post Office Department has shown

to me. -

It is no wonder, Mr. Speaker, that

church groups, civic associations, and

private citizens from all over California

and some other States have communicated with me in support of our efforts

to curb the flow of obscenity in the

mails. I take pride in pointing out that

Post Office Department personnel, un- der Postmaster General Summerfield's

.leadership, are strongly behind these

efforts. As' an example of these co-

-operative efforts let me read a resolution which was passed by chapter 4 of

.the National Association of Post-

-masters, representing postmasters in

.Santa Barbara, Ventura, Los Angeles,

Imperial, Orange, Riverside, San Bernardino, and San Diego Counties of

California:

Whereas the National Association of

Postmasters of the United States has officially requested the Congress of the United

States to take the strongest possible action

against the growing evil of obscene mail in

the country; and

Whereas Congressman PATRICK J. HILLINGS,

of Arcadia, the only Californian on the

House Judiciary Committee, has coura- geously led the fight in his committee to de-

.velop legislation to wipe out this cancerous growth from our society; there be it

Resolved, That we members of California

Chapter No. 4, National Association of Postmasters, heartily commend and congratulate

Congressman HILLINGS on his efforts to pre- serve the morals of our citizens of tomorrow

by stamping out the flow of obscenity in the

United States mails.

COMMITTEE ON MERCHANT

MARINE AND FISHERIES

Mr. McCORMACK. Mr. Speaker, I

ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries

may be permitted to sit during the session of the House during general debate

today.

The SPEAKER. Is there objection to

the request of the gentleman from

Massachusetts?

There was no objection.

COMMITTEE ON BANKING AND

CURRENCY

Mr. SPENCE. Mr. Speaker, I. ask

unanimous consent that the Committee

on Banking and Currency may sit this

afternoon during general debate.

The SPEAKER. Is there objection to

,the request of the gentleman from

Kentucky?

There was no objection.

LEGISLATIVE PROGRAM FOR

TODAY

Mr. McCORMACK. Mr. Speaker, I

ask unanimous consent to address the

House for 1 minute.

The SPEAKER. Is there objection

to the request of the gentleman from

Massachusetts?

There was no objection.

Mr. McCORMACK. Mr. Speaker, I

desire to make a brief announcement,

that the bill H. R. 9020, relating to the

Packers and Stockyards Act, will not .come up today, inasmuch as the gentleman from North Carolina I Mr. COOLEY]

has to be away because of the illness of

his wife.

Mr. MARTIN. Can the gentleman tell us when the bill will come up?

Mr. McCORMACK. It is not coming

up this week. I cannot promise when

I will program it again, but I will try to

program it before the end of the session.

CONTINENTAL HOSIERY MILLS,

INC.-MESSAGE FROM THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES

(H. DOC. NO. 428)

The SPEAKER 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. 4229, entitled "An act for

the relief of Continental Hosiery Mills,

Inc., of Henderson, N, C., successor to

Continental Hosiery Co., of Henderson,

N. C."

The bill would direct the Secretary of

the Treasury to pay the sum of $21,670.11

to Continental Hosiery Mills, Inc., of

Henderson, N. C., successor to Continental Hosiery Co., of Henderson, N. C., in

full settlement of all claims against the

United States. The bill states that this

sum represents a refund of income tax

erroneously collected from said corporation on April 19, 1947, by the Bureau of

Internal Revenue.

An examination by the Treasury Department discloses that the amount here

involved resulted from deficiencies in income and excess profits taxes for the

taxable years ending April 30, 1942,

through April 30, 1945, arising from the

disallowance of excessive salaries to the

president and to the vice president and

treasurer of the corporation. The taxpayer, after a conference with a representative of the Internal Revenue Service at which the taxpayer was represented by one of its principal officers and

by an attorney and an accountant, exe- cuted a waiver of restrictions on assessment and collection of these deficiencies

on October 3, 1946. Thereafter, the

taxes were assessed and were paid in

1947.

Several years later, during 1952, the

taxpayer requested a reopening of the

case but this request was denied by the

Internal Revenue Service because the

1958 15611
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - HOUSE

period of limitations for claiming a refund had expired in 1949, 2 years after

the taxes were paid.

The taxpayer now appears to rely

upon the fact that, in 1943, it had obtained the approval of the Salary Stabilization Unit of the Treasury Department concerning its compensation arrangement with its officers, which was

based upon a percentage of the taxpayer's profits. This fact, which presumably was known to the taxpayer in

1947 when the taxes were paid, was not

raised by the taxpayer in any appeal

either within the Internal Revenue

Service or to the courts within the statutory period of limitations. The record

in this case discloses no special circumstances justifying the taxpayer's failure

to appeal this matter until 5 years after

the tax was paid at which time the expiration of the period of limitations prevented any redetermination of its tax

liabilities for the years in question.

The granting of special relief in this

case, where a refund was not claimed in

the time and manner required by law,

would constitute a discrimination

against others similarly situated and

would create an undesirable precedent.

Under the circumstances, therefore, I am constrained to withhold my approval

of the bill.

DWIGHT D. EISENHOWER.

THE WHITE HOUSE, July 30, 1958.

The SPEAKER. The objections of

the President will be spread at large

upon the Journal.

Without objection, the bill and message and accompanying papers are referred to the Committee on the Judiciary and ordered to be printed.

There was no objection.

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA TAXICAB

INSURANCE ACT OF 1958

The SPEAKER. The unfinished business is the question on the passage of

the bill, H. R. 13531, to amend the act

of June 29, 1938, as amended, to increase

the insurance coverage required to be

carried by cabs for hire in the District

of Columbia for the protection of passengers and others, and for other purposes, which the Clerk will report by

title.

The Clerk read the title of the bill.

The SPEAKER. The question is on

the passage of the bill.

The bill was passed.

A motion to reconsider was laid on the

table.

Mr. EVINS. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to extend my remarks in

the RECORD at this point.

The SPEAKER. Is there objection

to the request of the gentleman from

Tennessee?

There was no objection.

Mr. EVINS. Mr. Speaker, when I

arose on Monday, last, in connection

with the bill just passed to increase insurance for taxicabs, I did so as a matter of information. Members of the

committee were unable to provide information at the time, which to me seemed

pertinent and important in consideration of the bill. I have, subsequently,

carefully examined the hearings on

this legislation, and although extensive

hearings were held on the overall problems relating to taxicabs in the District

of Columbia, very little time was devoted specifically to the insurance problem.

With respect to information relating

to insurance obtained by the committee

I have found that our colleague, Congressman TEAGUE, on several occasions

requested and sought the very information which I had requested, but the committee was unable to secure this information; namely, the cost of insurance

under the present law and the increased

cost and payments to the insurance companies that would result from the pending legislation.

It seems to me that a knowledge of the

cost and rates is certainly pertinent.

Especially so since I find that insurance

in this field is not competitive. The

major taxicab fleets here in the District

carry their own insurance as self -insurers. One other company, namely, the

Amalgamated Casualty Insurance Company of Washington, carries the insurance for 5,691 taxicabs, representing 47

taxicab companies. There are approximately 9,000 cabs in the District, and this

one insurance company carries insurance

for approximately 60 percent of all the

taxicabs in the District. So, Mr. Speaker,

this bill does, in fact, offer the possibility that a substantial bonanza may

accrue to this one insurance company, which, in effect, has a monopoly

on the taxicab-insurance business in the

Nation's Capital.

I have made some inquiries concerning the probable increase in the costs

under this bill. I am informed that the

cost could very well be doubled. At

present the insurance companies are collecting about $1,750,000 annually on this

type of insurance. That could be increased to more than $3 million annually,

and almost two-thirds of this amount

could go to the one company mentioned.

General comment was made during

the hearings that raising the limit of

coverage would increase rates by about

35 percent. Since cabdrivers pay premiums on a weekly basis, this would

probably mean an additional premium

of $1.25 a week-with the total number

of cabs this would amount to more than

a half a million dollars annually-a

rather substantial benefit to this company.

In addition, I want to call to the attention of my colleagues the fact that, while

raising the amount of coverage, this bill

provides that the liability of the insured

will be absolute, regardless of the stated

coverage, when an accident occurs. This

is a technical point, but I am advised by

insurance experts that this would have

two effects. In the first place, it would

place every cabdriver in the position of

having to buy the kind of insurance that

only those who have been found guilty

of serious crimes, such as driving while

intoxicated, committing a homicide with

a motor vehicle, leaving the scene of the

accident, reckless driving involving a personal injury, and any felony involving a

motor vehicle, are forced to buy under

present law. In other words, under the

terms of this bill, each and every taxicab

driver would be required to take out the

most expensive kind of insurance, thus

indicating that it is an insurance-company-benefit bill.

In the case of insurance for private

vehicles, that type of insurance calls for

an extra premium of 50 percent. If that

will be the case in this instance, it would

mean another additional cost of $2.50 a

week. In that event, the cost per week

to all operators could be as high as $7.25,

which is more than twice as much

as the present insurance premiums. The

accident experience does not justify such

a tremendous increase in cost.

In the case of the one insurance company mentioned that would mean an additional benefit of more than a million

dollars a year. It certainly would be

pertinent to consider whether we are justified in asking the public to pay so

large an increase in cost to justify these

increases in coverage.

The bill passed by the other body on

this subject opens the possibility of

breaking this near monopoly in insurance. It might be possible under its

terms for drivers to obtain insurance

from any of the 300 companies qualified

to sell insurance to private owners. Under the bill just passed, the present near

monopoly would be maintained.

While we may all recognize the desirability of having an increased protection to the public, my concern was with

respect to the amount of benefit going

to the insurance companies. It seems to

me that the committee did not develop

these facts fully. It was pointed out during debate by our colleague, Congressman TEAGUE, that there are a number

of studies underway at the present time

with respect to the overall taxicab problem in the District. These include studies by the National Capital Planning

Commission, the Capital Regional Planning Council, and the Washington Metropolitan Regional Conference. Public

Law 24 of the 85th Congress appropriated

funds to enable these studies to be made.

It certainly seems unwise to proceed on

this matter prior to the time these studies have been completed and particularly in view of the fact that Congress

has appropriated money to secure this

information.

I want to state that I have the highest regard and affection for our esteemed

colleague, the gentleman from Texas,

Congressman TEAGUE. We all know he

is a man of the highest character and

integrity. He is a hard worker. However, his committee has, in this bill,

touched upon only one part of the overall problem. This one places an additional cost and expense upon the taxicab operators and the public while not

solving the overall cab transportation

problems in the Nation's Capital.

ACQUISITION OF REMAINING PROPERTY IN SQUARE 725, DISTRICT

OF COLUMBIA, AND CONSTRUCTION THEREON OF ADDITIONAL

FACILITIES FOR THE UNITED

STATES SENATE

The SPEAKER. The further unfinished business before the House is the

question on the passage of the bill S.

15612 July 30