Tsang

(concurring in the result).

I concur in the result only, and in doing so I wish to note that I am not at all certain but that Congress intended to confine jurisdiction of litigation under the Act commonly called the “G.I. Bill of Rights” to the federal courts. It provided that the United States District Attorney should serve the “G.I.” without cost and in this it seems quite improbable to me that Congress had in mind directing United States Attorneys to act in state court actions, bound to be extensive in numbers. The Act provides that the courts’ services shall be free of costs to the returning service man and that actions under it shall be given a speedy hearing and shall receive preference on the court’s calendar. Here, surely the Congress was thinking of federal courts for it could hardly assume to command the states in the matters of costs and in the handling of calendars in their courts. It may be argued that the “G.I.” can select his forum and if he selects the state over the federal forum he knowingly waives the privileges granted him in the Act. Even if this be granted, it does not conclusively destroy the seeming intent of Congress that it was legislating with the view…

This is an appeal from a judgment for the appellee, a returned veteran, for lost wages due to the failure of appellant to restore him to his employment prior to'his war service, he having waived restoration •to his former position. The identical issile had been adjudicated against appellee in a suit between the parties in the Superior Court of the State of California in and for the City and County of San Francisco. There the employer, appellant, sought a judgment declaring his obligation to the appellee veteran, and he, instead of seeking a dismissal on the ground that the G. I. Bill of Rights gave him the right to choose his own forum, cross-complained and sought affirmatively from the state tribunal a judgment for his wages.

*205 The district court held that the veterans’ bill gives no jurisdiction to the state courts to adjudicate any of the rights conferred on the veteran. The appellant assigns as error this holding.

Congress in the G. I. Bill of Rights, Sec. 308(b) (B), gives the returned veteran the right of restoration to a position he had occupied and to wages as follows:

“If such position was in the employ of a private employer, su'ch employer shall restore such person…