« 이전계속 »
master was advised by this Department that he could not hold the position of postmaster and the position of clerk in the Department of Agriculture, he tendered his resignation as postmaster on November 29, 1930, and turned the office over to his wife who received the compensation in the amount of $411.90, which was the compensation of the postmaster from November 24, 1930, to June 16, 1931.
It is the opinion of your committee that Mr. Kirby should be relieved of this liability. Therefore, your committee recommend favorable consideration to the proposed legislation.
Appended hereto is the report of the Post Office Department, together with other pertinent evidence.
OFFICE OF THE PostmasTER GENERAL,
Washington, D. C., July 31, 1943. Hon. Dan R. McGEHEE, Chairman, Committee on Claims,
House of Representatives, Washington, D. C. MY DEAR MR. McGEHEE: In reply to your letter of May 11, 1943, requesting report of the Post Office Department on H. R. 2605, a bill for the relief of Charles W. Kirby, I have to report as follows:
It appears that Mr. Kirby served as a clerk in the Department of Agriculture at an annual salary of $1,800 during the period November 24, 1930, to June 16, 1931, and during the same period he was serving as postmaster. When the matter was called to his attention he elected to reimburse the United States by refunding the lesser salary which was that of postmaster.
Upon inquiry of the General Accounting Office it was learned that the postmaster claimed he did not receive the compensation himself, as postmaster from November 24, 1930, to June 16, 1931, and that his wife conducted the post office during that time and received the compensation. From this information it appears that when the postmaster was advised by this Department that he could not hold the position of postmaster and the position of clerk in the Department of Agriculture, he tendered his resignation as postmaster on November 29, 1930, and turned the office over to his wife who received the compensation in the amount of $411.90, which was the compensation of the postmaster from November 24, 1930, to June 16, 1931.
For these reasons it is recommended that favorable consideration be given to H. R. 2605.
It has been ascertained from the Bureau of the Budget that this report is in accord with the program of the President. Very truly yours,
FRANK C. WALKER,
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE,
Washington, August 2, 1948. Hon. Dan R. McGEHEE, Chairman, Committee on Claims,
House of Representatives, Washington, D. C. DEAR Mr. McGEHEE: This is in response to your request of May 5, 1943, for a report of the facts as disclosed by the files of the Department of Agriculture, and our opinion as to the merits of H. R. 2605, a bill for the relief of Charles W. Kirby.
Charles W. Kirby received a temporary appointment as assistant seed loan agent in the office of the Secretary at a salary of $1,800 per annum, to be effective November 24, 1930, and to terminate not later than February 23, 1931. On December 31, 1930, Mr. Kirby's appointment was extended for a probationary period of 6 months from that date, retention in the service after the expiration of the probationary period to be equivalent to absolute appointment. Mr. Kirby remained in service after the expiration of the probationary period and on March 16, 1932, was transferred and promoted to the position of State inspector, at a
salary of $2,400 per annum, which position he held until March 16, 1934, when he became State supervisor at a salary of $2,600 per annum. He resigned from this position on October 15, 1934, and was carried on the pay roll until the expiration of his accrued annual leave, at noon, November 7, 1934, when his name was removed.
The recommendation for his first appointment, signed by the chairman, Advisory Seed Loan Committee, Columbia, S. C., states, regarding his connections with the Post Office Department, thet“Mr. Kirby was postmaster of his town for about 10 years
His first personal history statement, executed by Mr. Kirby on March 29, 1934, contains no mention of his employment by the Post Office Department although it purports to cover his previous experience, Government or commercial, from 1920 through March 29, 1934. His words are as follows:
"Manager and part owner of mercantile business from 1920 to 1930 handling farm credits. With Farmers Seed Loan Office United States Department of Agriculture November 24, 1930, to March 16, 1932 as State supervisor from September 21, 1931, to March 16, 1932. With Crop Production Loan Office as State supervisor from March 16, 1932 to present time."
Thus the Department of Agriculture was without knowledge that Mr. Kirby was paid a salary by the Post Office Department during any period for which he was paid a salary for his services to the Department. The files do not disclose, nor do those of his then superior officers who are still attached to the Department recall, that any allegation or charge was ever made that he devoted any of bis time to duties other than those of the position for which he received a salary from the Department, during or after the hours when he was required to perform such duties for the Department.
The Farm Credit Administration which, as an independent agency, took over the work of the Department in connection with emergency crop and feed loans on May 26, 1933, received an inquiry dated March 2, 1935 (R-385182), from the chief examiner of the Civil Service Commission, as to the amount paid Mr. Kirby by the Department of Agriculture from November 24, 1930, to June 15, 1931. The Civil Service Commission stated that it appeared that Mr. Kirby had been employed concurrently by the Department and as postmaster in the post office at Browns, Ala., and that he might have received salary in violation of the act of August 29, 1916. On March 12, 1935, the Civil Service Commission was advised that during the period in question Mr. Kirby had been paid a gross amount of $990, $28.23 of which represented retirement deductions, or a net of $961.77. The files of the Farm Credit Administration, now under the jurisdiction of the Department pursuant to the Reorganization Act of April 3, 1939 (53 Stat. 563), reveal nothing further concerning the outcome of the matter. We understand, however, that the disallowance by the Comptroller General and the bill for relief involve the question as to whether or not Mr. Kirby shall be permitted to retain salary paid him by the Post Office Department, rather than by the Department of Agriculture, for the period in question. It is probable that you have made a similar request to the Post Office Department and to the Civil Service Commission for a report as to this bill. It is believed that those agencies can furnish information and recommendations more helpful to the committee than can the Department of Agriculture.
The Bureau of the Budget advises that it has no objection to the submission of this letter, Sincerely,
PAUL H. APPLEBY,
STATE OF ALABAMA Milk CONTROL BOARD,
Anniston, Ala., May 9, 1948. Hon. Sam F. HOBBS,
Member of Congress, Washington, D. C. MY DEAR JUDGE HOBBs: I have your letter of May 5 enclosing copy of House bill 2605 which you introduced in my behalf.
Mr. Hobbs, I do want to thank you for your help in this matter and I hope you can' secure favorable action on this bill in the near future.
I feel that I complied with the law in every particular by resigning before accepting the position with the Department of Agriculture. I further notified the
post office inspector in the Selma district and he agreed to appoint my wife as acting postmaster pending a permanent appointment. As I have told you before I was not at Browns at any time between November 24, 1930, and June 15, 1931, except 3 days in March 1931 at which time I visited my family. I am further willing to give an affidavit that I received no fund from the post office at Browns from November 24 through June 15, 1931. Frankly, I do not see how the Comptroller's Office ruled against me in this matter.
I shall deeply appreciate your further interest in the matter and hope you will keep me advised from time to time as to the progress being made. Sincerely yours,
CHARLES W. KIRBY.
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
REPORT No. 1379
ADOLPHUS M. HOLMAN
APRIL 25, 1944.—Committed to the Committee of the Whole House and ordered
to be printed
Mr. Patron, from the Committee on Claims, submitted the following
[To accompany H. R. 2674)
The Committee on Claims, to whom was referred the bill (H. R. 2674) for the relief of Adolphus M. Holman, having considered the same, report favorably thereon with an amendment and recommend that the bill as amended do pass. The amendment is as follows:
Page 1, line 7, strike out the words "his claim”, and insert in lieu thereof, the words “all claims”.
The purpose of the proposed legislation is to appropriate the sum of $5,846.92 to Adolphus M. Holman, of Las Cruces, N. Mex., in full settlement of all claims against the United States for property damages and personal injuries sustained when the car which he was driving was struck by an Army truck on the highway near Alamogordo, N. Mex., on September 28, 1942.
STATEMENT OF FACTS
It appears that on the evening of September 28, 1942, two Army cargo trucks, on official business, were en route from Biggs Field, Tex., to the Alamogordo Air Base at Alamogordo, N. Mex.About 12:45 a. m., on September 29, 1942, while these trucks were proceeding in a northerly direction on United States Highway No. 54, a 1937 Oldsmobile coupe owned and operated by Adolphus M. Holman, who was accompanied by his son-in-law, Mike Schilling, approached from the opposite direction. The drivers of the two Army trucks dimmed their lights and signaled by blinking a request to the approaching civilian driver to switch
to his dim lights, but the civilian driver did not turn on his dim lights until he had approached to a point within a short distance from the first Army truck.
The dim light on the left side of Mr. Holman's car was out, and he continued down the road with only one dim light burning. The drivers of the two Army trucks turned as far as possible to their right
in an effort to avert a collision. The first Army truck, driven by Second Lt. Hugh G. Gardner, missed the civilian car. However, after passing the first truck Mr. Holman's car continued to bear to its left and as a result thereof it struck the left front wheel and left side of the second truck.
As a result of the collision the Army truck was damaged to the extent of $358.82. Mr. Holman's car was damaged to the extent of approximately $400. He sustained a multiple fracture of his left leg and numerous cuts and bruises.
In a letter dated December 10, 1942, from Dr. W. D. Sedgwick, his injuries are diagnosed as follows: A simple fracture of the left tibia in the middle third; a simple fracture head of left tibia and thrombophlebitis left leg. After hospitalization for a few days a cast was applied. He was dismissed from the hospital October 11, 1942, and instructed to return periodically for observation. About December 3, 1942, the cast was removed from his leg: At that time there was still an incomplete union of the fracture side and thrombophlebitis.
The report of the War Department dated August 28, 1943, states that Mike Schilling said they had been drinking. However, in an affidavit signed by Mr. Schilling, dated October 21, 1943, he denies that he ever made any such statement to the authorities. Also, in this affidavit it is stated that they had not been drinking. This statement is verified by an affidavit by Mr. Holman. They both state that the cause of the accident was due to the driver of the Government vehicle not dimming his lights, thus blinding the driver of the civilian car and causing the accident.
Therefore, it is the opinion of your committee that the Govern- . ment driver was negligent in not dimming his lights when a car was approaching from the opposite direction. The committee recommends favorable consideration to the bill.
Appended hereto is the report of the War Department, together with other pertinent evidence.
Washington, D. C., August 28, 1943. Hon. Dan R. McGEHEE, Chairman, Committee on Claims,
House of Representatives, Washington, D. C. DEAR MR. McGEHEE: The War Department is opposed to the enactment of H. R. 2674, Seventy-eighth Congress, a bill which would authorize and direct the Secretary of the Treasury to pay to Adolphus M. Holman, of Las Cruces, N. Mex., the sum of $5,846.92, in full satisfaction of his claim against the United States for property damages and personal injury sustained by him on September 28, 1942, when a car driven by said Adolphus M. Holman was struck by an Army truck of the United States on the highway near Alamogordo, N: Mex.
On the evening of September 28, 1942, two Arn cargo trucks, on official business, were en route from Biggs Field, Tex., to the Alamogordo Air Base at Alamogordo, N. Mex. About 12:45 a. m., on September 29, 1942, while these trucks were proceeding in a northerly direction on United States Highway No. 54 about 20 miles from Alamogordo, a 1937 Oldsmobile coupe owned and operated by Adolphus VI. Holman, who was accompanied by his son-in-law, Mike Schilling, approached from the opposite direction traveling in the middle of the road. The drivers of the two Army trucks dimmed their lights and signaled by blinking a request to the approaching civilian driver to switch to his dim lights, but the civilian driver did not turn on his dim lights until he had approached to a point within a short distance from the first Army truck. The dim light on the left