LegHist.PL89-563.Volume.ONE.Sec.Ten.and

litr. Ct$li!ss,n, I belleve t$15 Eqrtndment
thould be wted dowil ovcrrheLBlngly,
There are a lot of p€ople who would
lhe lo mrle thls a Prnltlve m€Esure.
Eowevcr, Ee Ere trylng to make thls an
efiectlve zreaflrre. I do not belleve the
lht€nt of thl.b blU l3 to pun.l6h p€ople.
ft b to sve llves aDd reduce lnjuleE.
We h,Bve lnJunctlve procealure$ ln thls
beesufe, and many other ptoccdures
thet cen b€ brought to besr. Fot thet
teNon I belleve the e,Eendment should
be voted down.
Mr. DINGE L. Mf. Ch4tman,I hove
to Btrlke out ttre l+st word. and I d$4 ln
opposltlon to tfte Earendment.
Mr. chsllman, lt should b€ polntdd out
very clearly flrst of aII thBt the functlon
of thl$ emendErent ls to ffiw tlre eflett
,
of thls statute. It |s well knom to
students of tJle law that crhilnal ststute$
are very namwly mn8tnred. Thl$
ls one of the ttssons thBt thc oommltttt
ln lts wisdom dld not lru€rt crltrrlnEt
IEnaltles.
Ftrthemore, the gentlfltgn's e$endment
worrld requlre th8t the vlolAtloh of
"knowlngly
thl-$ Etstuta be mmmltted
and wllllrilly." Ttris lmpoffi an dmost
lEposglble burden of prool on eny prc-
€cutlon.
Thls ls one of the Eo|8t dlfrcult things
ln Jurlsprudence lo prtve. I would polnt
out a.s s lomer &sslstmt pnosecutor lt I$
olt+nttmes weU Dlsh lmposlble to prcve.
l4t us look lurther at thls EEtter. we
,
rE told by the gmd EentlemBfl trom
M8s$sEhu$etts, who ls qy dear frlentl,
that thls leclslatlon lE not rtmng
cnoush. A lmk Bt the blll, et, what the
oommlttee
proves tltls:
he$ brousht to the floor, dls-
Flrst of all, for any vloletlotE ol thls
atatut€, or for markethg m unsafe vehlcle,
or for f8llure to exerclse adequtt
EtandErrb ol care in the manuJsrtue of
verucle.s, t^he bj.ll prolddcs tor al] civll
Fnaltles aEroDtlrg t'o $f ,000 p+r vehlcle
or t1,000 per tlre, or 11,000 p€r pdrt ot E
vehlcle whlch ls unsafe-up to a t'ottrl of
i400,000, certelnly a most vlgorou8 penalty
Blflost to the polnt ol belns conflscatory,
Second, we have prffierued evety dngle
Gor|unoh-Iew reftedy that exlst-r eg8lnst
a manutedturer lor tJre beneflt of B motor
vehlcle puJch&Ber. This meens that eu
of the wemnties and all of the other de-
,
vles of ffiImon law whlch are afiorded
to the puch&ser, reDain ln the buyer,
ahd they can br exercised ag&inst the
hBnulsaturut.
rqstly, we heve emressly authorlzed
use in the murtt of the trtderal Govem-
.
Erent the full poweE of equlty to enlorce
t}le btu at ttre request of ttle Secretsry.
Thlg means that where there ls elther
productlon of or the threat ol proaluctlon
of sn ffisfe motor vehlcle the Secrtery
tnay go to s murt of equltv End
hey enjoln prcductlon ol the automobfle,
or mBy B€ek such othef reliel es ls necessary
to proiect the AuretlcaD D€ople
lrom bBvlng an msfe motor vehlcle
plsx€d updn the trlghmys.
ThIs power coultl include cmJEatlve
lhjuncttons, to requtre the manufBchlttr
to t{,Ee oorrtrtlve actlon. rt 6uld lnclude
prcblbltdry lnJuctloDa to prcvmt ur-
House Debate
lste rdotor vehlcler from sohl8 on tne
roads. It could lnclude Judlclally levelcd
penEltl€d for vloletloEa ol court or.
ders, much IBrEer than the f{00,000 clvll
p.n8lty Eutfiorlz€d h the blll It could
lrElude crtfllnsl contempt sctlon, W
shlch vtolatlon of a court order *ould
ple,cr the vlolator ln Jsll lor s loDg
as the oourt cho#. It muld lrulude clvll
cont€mpt, whtch would man pltrln8
the lndlvlduel under restrlctloro oi the
court untll Euch tlhe Ls he had purged
hlnuelf ol the cont€mpt and until he hf,d
cdmplled
@ut.
B'lth the requlrements ol the
In Eddltlon, lt would Efiord the 16dbtlty
to the court And a.llow, wheit
Eo nffie&t8ry, the levl'lns of clvll peneltle6
by the courk up to $1,000 p€r vehlclc
or pBrt up td $400,000. as were tr6oe8sary
to Bsure the pfotectlon of ttr;
A.merlcan p€ople en(l to punlsh t,lle
manufsdture of mafe motor vehlclE
ind pErt3.
I would polnt out thst the Bvengc
cdvU p€n8lty assert€d by the commltt€e
ln lleu of a flne muld so up to I total
of $400.000. I would point out ttlat the
standard of prool whlch must be bome
uder the comElttre blll ls much dlflerent
End much better, lf you ere lnt€rested
tn er)forcemeht, btraus€ s clvll
Fdnslty ls leveled by the courts urcn 6
flndlng Bupport€d by only a falr prepondemce
ol the evidence. It teke6 much
le6$ to E|Jstaln t}te cese of the Govern-
Eent. In a crlmlnEl proscuflon the
Fedenl Government mu.3t o19vg $gyond
s ressonable doubt. a much besvler burden
of proof.
Ttre chtrlrman oI the cornnltte
polnted out somethlng that should not
lt€ lost upon tlrls Houae. who ls Fohg
to b€ charged vtth a crlmlnal !'tol&tlo4
under thls Etatute lI lt ls smended the
way the gentlehan from Massachu.s€tt3
would have lt emcnded? Is lt golna to
De the presldent ol the corporatlon ? AE
we rolnlr to be able to sy thet he wlll-
Iully and knowhrly dlal tlris? The anwer
Ls mLst probsbly not. 16 lt go|rrB
to b€ leveled E{ainst f,ny pttductlon oEclEl
or engineer of the compeny? It Ls sohs
to b€ leveled EgBlnst e Droductlon llne
e&ployee of the mnpmy? Indefil, lt
could b€, under the lenFuese of the Eentleman
from Ma$sEchusttts, leveled
E8lalnst eny percon qtho hBpp€tr to be
ln the employ ol the mmpany, from the
hlehe$ ofnclal to the lowest pfld Janltorial
or custndial employee, lncluding
$weelxE a$ *eU as those vho work upon
the m*mbly llnes.
It ls well known ttrEt the stEndErd ol
proot reqlrired*that Ls. thEt B person
knowlngly nnd wlllfu1ly vlolBted the
Iaw-would lmlEse such B burden on tJre
Federfll qovernment tjlat lt lE hlghly
rloubtfu-l tJrEt Eny pros€cution oI thlE
klnd would evsr b€ sucmsfully errled
ouf,.
Mr. MoSS. Mr. chalman, I rlse In
support of the emendmeht.
Mf. STAC'GERS. Mr. chelrmm, vlll
ttle Eentletrlen ylelal?
Mr. MQSS. I Toultl be very Plssetl
to yleld to my dlEtlnculshed chalrftEE-
Mr. ATAOGERS. I wonder ll Ec
could !8t 8 tlme ltdlt on tblr tlEbstG. I
769