83D CONGRESS 2d Session } SENATE '{ REPORT No. 1563 CARL A. ANNIS, WAYNE C. CRANNEY, AND LESLIE O. YARWOOD JUNE 9 (legislative day, MAY 13), 1954.-Ordered to be printed Mr. LANGER, from the Committee on the Judiciary, submitted the following REPORT [To accompany H: R. 2678] The Committee on the Judiciary, to which was referred the bill (H. R. 2678), for the relief of Carl A. Annis, Wayne C. Cranney, and Leslie O. Yarwood, having considered the same, reports favorably thereon with an amendment and recommends that the bill, as amended, do pass. AMENDMENT On page 2, lines 4 and 5, strike the words "for the payment of any one claim in excess of 10 per centum thereof". PURPOSE The purpose of the proposed legislation, as amended, is to pay Carl A. Annis, of Osgood, Ind., $241.70; Wayne C. Cranney, of Afton, Wyo., $315.45; and Leslie O. Yarwood, of Mohler, Wash., $186.60, the value of their respective property lost in the same accident on June 9, 1947, while serving as employees of the United States Coast and Geodetic Survey. The property was aboard a dory belonging to and operated by this Government service, which sank in Alaskan waters. STATEMENT The Department of Commerce, in its report on this legislation, states that since the losses sustained by the claimants were incurred in the course of their employment through no fault of their own, and since the amount appeared to be reasonable compensation for the losses incurred, the Department recommends enactment of this legislation. This legislation, as amended, will reimburse the claimants, Carl A. Annis, Wayne C. Cranney, and Leslie O. Yarwood, employees of the Department of Commerce for losses incurred by them as the result of a sinking of a dory belonging to the Coast and Geodetic Survey. A résumé of the list of articles lost is attached to this report, and the consideration of them indicates that all of such articles were necessary to the claimants' health and well-being during their employment. It is the view of the committee that the losses sustained by these claimants were, through no fault of their own, incurred in the course of their employment. The amounts involved therein appear to be reasonable and the committee is constrained to recommend that the bill, H. R. 2678, as amended, be considered favorably. Hon. CHAUNCEY W. REED, THE SECRETARY OF COMMERCE, Chairman, Committee on the Judiciary, House of Representatives, Washington, D. C. DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: This letter is in reply to your request of February 9, 1953, for the views of this Department concerning H. R. 2678, a bill for the relief of Carl A. Annis, Wayne C. Cranney, and Leslie O. Yarwood. The bill would reimburse Messrs. Annis, Cranney, and Yarwood, employees of this Department, for losses incurred by them as a result of the sinking of a dory belonging to the Coast and Geodetic Survey of this Department. Relief may not be had under the Federal Tort Claims Act since the sinking of the dory was not occasioned by the fault or negligence of a Government employee. No method of relief to these employees other than a private bill appears to be available. Since the losses sustained by them were incurred in the course of their employment through no fault of their own, and since the amounts involved appear to be reasonable compensation for the losses incurred, this Department recommends enactment of this legislation. There are attached copies of itemized lists of the property lost by the three men. The notarized originals of these lists are on file in this Department and will be made available if your committee so desires. We take this opportunity to suggest for your consideration the possible desirability of general legislation similar to the Military Personnel Claims Act of 1945 (59 Stat. 225) as amended, authorizing the heads of all independent executive agencies to settle claims of employees arising from the loss or damage of personal property incurred in the performance of official duties. Such legislation, authorizing the settlement of claims for amounts up to an appropriate ceiling, would relieve the Congress and the executive branch of much of the work now involved in the enactment of private relief bills authorizing payment of such claims on an individual basis. We will be glad to work with the staff of the committee on such legislation or to submit a draft for this purpose should the committee so desire. We are advised by the Bureau of the Budget that it would interpose no objection to the submission of this report. If we can be of further assistance in this matter, please call on us. Sincerely yours, SINCLAIR WEEKS, JUNE 9 (legislative day, MAY 13), 1954.-Ordered to be printed Mr. LANGER, from the Committee on the Judiciary, submitted the following REPORT [To accompany H: R. 2815] The Committee on the Judiciary, to which was referred the bill (H. R. 2815) for the relief of Floyd C. Barber, having considered the same, reports favorably thereon with an amendment and recommends that the bill as amended, do pass. AMENDMENT On page 2, line 1, strike the following: in excess of 10 per centum thereof PURPOSE The purpose of the proposed legislation is to pay to Floyd C. Barber, of Kenosha, Wis., the sum of $1,853, in full settlement of all claims against the United States for the loss of wages and expenses resulting from his suspension from his position in the Kenosha post office during the period from June 1939 to July 1940. STATEMENT Floyd C. Barber was employed as a clerk in the main post office at Kenosha, Wis. During the period of his employment in the post office, Mr. Barber discovered a shortage in the money-order account of one Herbert C. Thomey, Sr., clerk in the substation of the Kenosha post office. Mr. Barber immediately reported this shortage to the postmaster, who instructed him to take $700 (the amount of the shortage) from the credit union funds and give it to Mr. Thomey to cover the shortage. Thereafter, Mr. Barber delivered $700 out of the funds of the credit union, of which he was then secretary, to the person in charge of the substation of the Kenosha post office. Subse quently, after careful investigation by the post office inspectors, the claimant was charged with preparing and causing to be rendered to the Post Office Department false money-order accounts from December 1936 to May 1937, inclusive; appropriating to his own use, without authority, $700 in credit union funds, with which to conceal from inspectors a shortage existing at the post office, and accepting $700 from the clerk in charge of the post office to repay the funds misappropriated by the claimant. On June 9, 1939, the claimant was indicted on the above offenses and on June 19, 1939, he was suspended from his employment. On May 24, 1940, the case against the claimant was dismissed in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin. Shortly thereafter, he was reassigned to duty and reported for duty on or about June 11, 1940. Claimant now seeks to recover the salary which would have been due him but for his suspension, less the amounts earned by him in other employment during the period of his suspension. The Department of Justice and the Post Office Department submitted reports in connection with similar legislation introduced in the previous Congress. The Post Office Department stated its opposition to that measure and the Department of Justice concurred in that opposition. The committee believes that this legislation should be approved. At the time this claimant transferred credit union funds to cover this shortage, he was doing so at the direction of the postmaster. The claimant himself had promptly reported the discrepancy to his superior. Apparently, when these facts were ascertained, the indictment against him was dropped. Thus, it appears that, although this claimant was suspended for probable cause, having been indicted, nevertheless his suspension proved to be unjust. In such a situation, the committee feels that the claimant should be reimbursed for the loss of salary during his suspension, less such amounts as he may have earned in the interim. This award has been so reduced and the committee, therefore, recommends favorable consideration. The affidavits of the claimant, the indictment of the claimant, the dismissal of the indictment, and the reports of the Department of Justice and the Office of the Postmaster General are appended to the House report and need not be reprinted here. |