Imagini ale paginilor
PDF
ePub
[ocr errors]

In the settlement of Collector Holtzman's accounts for April and May, 1929, credit was not allowed for the salary payments made to Burns in excess of the rate of $1,900 per annum, the rate established by section 1 of the customs classification act of May 29, 1928 (45 Stat. 955), for clerks having two years' but less than three years' satisfactory service.

In the request for review it is contended that Burns became legally entitled to salary at the rate of $2,300 per annum by reason of his promotion on March 28, 1929, by administrative action, to an existing vacancy in grade CAF-6, under the provision in section 3 of said act of May 29, 1928, which reads:

Nothing in this act shall be construed to prevent the promotion of any employee at any time to a vacant position in a higher grade, and when so promoted such employee shall receive the compensation fixed in accordance with law for such position;

Section 1 of said customs classification act of May 29, 1928, provides, in so far as here material, as follows:

“That the following annual rates of compensation are hereby established for the employees in the Customs Service hereinafter specified:

*

*

[ocr errors]
[blocks in formation]

“(c) Clerks, entrance salary, $1,700; clerks having one year's satisfactory service, $1,800; clerks having two years' satisfactory service, $1,900; clerks having three years' satisfactory service, $2,000; clerks having four years' satisfactory service, $2,100; thereafter promotion of clerks to higher rates of compensation shall be in accordance with existing law.”

Said act was specifically made effective July 1, 1928. The phrase "existing law,” in the provision for promotion of clerks to rates above $2,100, would include section 3 of the act of May 26, 1928, supra, authorizing the heads of the departments to adjust the compensation of certain civilian positions in the field service, the compensation of which was adjusted by the act of December 6, 1924 (43 Stat. 704), as extended through subsequent fiscal years, to correspond, so far as may be practicable, to the rates established by said act of May 28, 1928, for positions in the District of Columbia. But the use of the word "thereafter” in the provisions for promotion of clerks to higher rates precludes from such promotion any clerk with less than four years' satisfactory service. Therefore, on and after July 1, 1928, $2,100 per annum is the maximum salary rate authorized for customs clerks in the field service who have had not more than four years' continuous satisfactory service, but higher rates are authorized “in accordance with existing law," and within available appropriations, for clerks who have had more than four years' continuous satisfactory service.

Section 3 of the statute quoted above on which the assistant collector of customs is basing his request for removal of the disallowances in the accounts of the collector, is not effective to authorize the administrative office to promote a clerk having not more than four years' continuous satisfactory service to rates of compensation in excess of $2,100 per annum while retaining the status of clerk. The section would permit the promotion of a clerk having any number of years' service, with the approval of the Civil Service Commission and subject to the usual limitations as to initial salary, to a vacant position not clerical in character with salary of more than $2,100 per annum, or to promote a clerk having more than four years' satisfactory service to a vacant clerical position with salary of more than $2,100 per annum. In other words, sections 1 and 3 of the statute are not inconsistent, and under the fundamental principle of statutory construction the two sections are to be construed in connection with each other. It would be most unreasonable to conclude that the Congress intended in section 3 of the statute to provide a means by which the administrative office could disregard the express terms of section 1 fixing a definite automatic increase based on longevity for clerks in the Customs Service.

As clerk John F. Burns had completed only two years' continuous satisfactory
service on July 21, 1928, his legal salary rate after that date to and including
July 21, 1929, was $1,900 per annum, and on July 22, 1929, his legal salary rate
became $2,000 per annum. His salary payments must be adjusted accordingly.
The action in the audit is sustained.
Respectfully,

J. R. McCarl,
Comptroller General of the United States.

TREASURY DEPARTMENT,

BUREAU OF CUSTOMS,

Washington, July 1, 1930. Meniorandum for Senator Watson.

The bill (H. R. 12742) is a measure to amend the act approved May 29, 1928, which adjusted the compensation of certain employees in the Customs Service. The present bill does not provide for any increases in salary, but simply changes the language of the act of May 29, 1928, in order to meet certain rulings of the Comptroller General.

After the act of May 29, 1928, was approved, the Treasury Department put it into effect as they interpreted the law and the intent of Congress, but later the Comptroller General issued certain rulings which stopped the Treasury Department from carrying out certain practices in connection with transfers of employees which had been followed in the past. As an illustration, an inspector of customs who was receiving $2,100 per annum was transferred to a higher grade clerical position in the customhouse, and heretofore he was always transferred without any loss in salary, but under the ruling of the Comptroller General he was forced to suffer a reduction of $400, wnich was the entrance salary of a clerk.

The Comptroller General has called for the repayment of this money from the employees involved, and has given the Treasury Department until July 1, this year, to obtain remedial legislation. The amount of money involved is about $6,000 and covers about 30 employees.

As stated above the proposed bill (H. R. 12742) does not increase salaries in the Customs Service but simply changes the language of the former act in order to meet the decisions of the Comptroller General.

FRANK Dow,
Assistant Commissioner of Customs.

[ocr errors]

AUTHORIZING THE SECRETARY OF THE NAVY TO DELIVER TO

THE CUSTODY OF THE CITY OF DENVER, COLO., THE SHIP'S BELL, PLAQUE, WAR RECORD, NAME PLATE, AND SILVER SERVICE OF THE CRUISER “DENVER"

JULY 2, 1930.-Ordered to be printed

Mr. Hale, from the Committee on Naval Affairs, submitted the

following

REPORT

[To accompany H. R. 10387)

The Committee on Naval Affairs, to whom was referred the bill (H. R. 10387) authorizing the Secretary of the Navy, in his discretion, to deliver to the custody of the city of Denver, Colo., the ship's bell, plaque, war record, name plate, and silver service of the cruiser Denver, that is now or may be in his custody, having considered the same, report favorably thereon, without amendment, and with the recommendation that the bill do pass.

The bill meets with the approval of the Navy Department, as shown by the following letter from the Acting Secretary of the Navy addressed to the chairman of the Committee on Naval Affairs of the House of Representatives, and which is hereby made a part of this report:

NAVY DEPARTMENT,

Washington, April 2, 1930. The CHAIRMAN COMMITTEE ON NAVAL AFFAIRS,

House of Representatives, Washington. D. C. MY DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: Replying further to the committee's letter of March 3, 1930, transmitting the bill (H. R. 10387) authorizing the Secretary of the Navy, in his discretion, to deliver to the custody of the city of Denver, Colo., the ship's bell, plaque, war record, name plate, and silver service of the cruiser Denver that is now or may be in his custody, and requesting the views and recommendations of the Navy Department thereon, I have the honor to inform the committee as follows:

The U. S. S. Denver is at present in commission and on active service. The Navy Department has no objection to the enactment of the bill H. R. 10387, provided the articles mentioned therein be retained on board the Denver until such time as that vessel is stricken from the Navy list. Sincerely yours,

ERNEST LEE JAHNCKE,

The Acting Secretary of the Navy. O

}

{

SENATE

71st CONGRESS

2d Session

REPORT No. 1156

TROPHY GUN TO F. D. HUBBEL RELIEF CORPS NO. 103,

OF HILLSBORO, ILL.

JULY 2, 1930.-Ordered to be printed

Mr. REED, from the Committee on Military Affairs, submitted the

following

REPORT

[To accompany H. R. 4050)

The Committee on Military Affairs, to which was referred the bill (H. R. 4050) donating trophy gun to F. D. Hubbel Relief Corps No. 103, of Hillsboro, ill., having considered the same, report favorably thereon with the recommendation that it do pass.

The purpose of the bill is set forth in the House report thereon which is made a part of this report and reads as follows:

The Committee on Military Affairs, to whom was referred the bill (H. R. 4050) donating trophy gun to F. D. Hubbel Relief Corps No. 103, of Hillsboro, Il., introduced by Mr. Frank M. Ramey, having considered the same, report thereon with the recommendation that it do pass with the following amendment:

Line 4, strike out the word “Hubble” and insert in lieu thereof “Hubbel”.

The purpose of this legislation is clearly set forth in the letter from the War Department, which is made a part of this report, as follows:

WAR DEPARTMENT,

Washington, July 20, 1929. Hon. W. FRANK JAMES,

Chairman Committee on Military Affairs, House of Representatives. DEAR MR. JAMES: I am pleased to comply with your request of June 25, 1929, for

a report on a bill (H. R. 4050) donating a trophy gun to the F. D. Hubbel Relief Corps No. 103, of Hillsboro, Ill.

The existing law authorizing distribution of old guns is contained in the act of May 26, 1928 (Public 549, 70 Cong., 45 Stat. 773), which authorizes the Secretary of War to loan or give to soldier's monument associations, posts of the Grand Army of the Republic, posts of the American Legion, and other recognized war veterans' associations, State museums, and municipal corporations, condemned os obsolete ordnance guns, projectiles, and other condemned or obsolete material, but there is no law existing at present which authorizes the donation of this specific bronze gun to the organization mentioned in the bill.

SR-71-2-VOL 2—91

« ÎnapoiContinuați »