has trouble walking and always drags his leg. In Mr. Morehead's opinion Tom Kelly's condition is due entirely to the automobile wreck he had.

Eldon Hoobler: Mr. Hoobler, a barber in Skedee, said he shaved Mr. Kelly a few days after he was hurt in an automobile accident in 1934. According to Mr. Hoobler's statement Mr. Kelly came into his shop to get a shave, and he was "stove-up" and complaining about his back. He also had some scratches on his head and face. Mr. Hoobler also stated that he had been called to Mr. Kelly's house to shave him while he was in bed but did not remember the exact time.

He stated that he had noticed Mr. Kelly on the street around town and noticed he had trouble walking. He stated he did not know what his trouble was, but he supposed it was from the automobile accident.

Dr. C. H. Haddox: Dr. Haddox is a practicing physician with offices in Pawnee, Okla. On being questioned he gave practically the same information as contained in his affidavit made June 1, 1937.

In addition he stated that he had advised Tom Kelly to see Dr. Huling, a chiropractor in Pawnee at that time, and she might give him some treatments that would help his back. However, he showed no improvement, and Dr. Haddox suggested to Mr. Kelly that he go to Dr. Wade Sisler in Tulsa, which he did. He has not treated Mr. Kelly for his back injury since Dr. Sisler took the case over, but treated him sometime ago for some burns on his hands. When questioned he stated he did not make any inquiries as to the condition of Mr. Kelly's back at that time, nor did he pay any attention to his movements or standing position.

He stated that he treated Mr. Kelly on November 20, 1934, for a back injury that apparently had happened some time before. He also stated that, from his experience with such cases, he did not believe the condition he found could have been caused by an injury inflicted a few hours before he saw him. He said Mr. Kelly suffered a great deal of pain while he was treating him, and on one occasion it took him about an hour to get Mr. Kelly turned on the bed so he could treat him. He stated such back injuries frequently did not become serious until some time after the injury occurred.

He knew nothing of the automobile accident except what he had been told; but, due to the condition found in Mr. Kelly's back, he thought that was when his back was injured.

Dr. Haddox had no record of the number of times he treated Mr. Kelly, but he estimated the cost to Mr. Kelly as being around $30. He stated Mr. Kelly did not owe him any money for treatments to his back because he paid in cash for the treatments when they were administered.

Col. E. Walters: Colonel Walters is a resident of Skedee and father-in-law of Tom Kelly. Colonel Walters made the following statements: That he was driving his car when it was run into by a Civilian Conservation Corps truck on the date of September 24, 1934; that Tom Kelly was a passenger in the car at the time and was injured at the time; that neither he nor Tom Kelly were given any examination to speak of by the camp doctor at the time of the accident; that Tom Kelly complained of his back hurting him that same day when he was coming home from the wreck; that Tom Kelly remained at home and was unable to do any work to speak of for 2 or 3 weeks after the accident, and that he was even worse after he had a stroke a couple of months after the accident; that Tom Kelly did not go with him and Oscar Berg to get the car and was not present when the car was brought to Skedee and unloaded; that some of the Civilian Conservation Corps boys at the camp helped load the car with the front end up on the truck. Colonel Walters made the following statements also: That he was called to Tom Kelly's home on November 20, 1934, when he had some sort of stroke and had to be picked up and put on the bed; that since that time Mr. Kelly has been unable to look after his business properly and has had to hire someone to go with him on trips and do the work for him; that Tom Kelly has made several trips to Colorado to take mud baths; that Tom Kelly has always been strong and healthy and had not had trouble with his back before the accident; that he was probably the strongest man in Pawnee country before the accident.

He contends that Tom Kelly has lost much business on account of his condition and has suffered from the time of the accident to the present. He stated that not only is Mr. Kelly unable to do work, but that he is nervous and hard to get along with, and his mind is affected by the accident.

He stated that there was no bodily contact between Tom Kelly and his son Jack on November 20, 1934, and his injury is entirely due to the automobile accident. He stated that Mr. Kelly has trouble getting around, drags his leg and foot, frequently falls down, and has to have some one help him get up again.

He stated that Mr. Kelly has been in this condition since he fell in 1934, and he does not believe he will ever be well again.

CONCLUSIONS

1. In paying for repairs to Col. E. Walters' car, damaged in a collision with a Civilian Conservation Corps truck September 24, 1934, the Government has admitted its responsibility for the accident.

2. There is evidence to prove the claimant, Tom Kelly, was an occupant of the car at the time of the accident.

3. There has never been any proper investigation made to determine the extent of the injuries sustained in the accident by the claimant, Tom Kelly.

4. There is evidence that the claimant complained of his back hurting soon after the accident and that he was more or less incapacitated for a period of several days after the accident. According to the affidavit made by the claimant and statements made during this investigation, attention of Project Superintendent Rule was called to the back injury on at least two occasions when the claimant refused to sign a release presented by the project superintendent. The claimant did some work during this time and up to November 20, 1934, with the assistance of hired help to do the heavy work in connection with his gas and oil deliveries.

5. On November 20, 1934, approximately 2 months after the accident, the claimant suffered a physical break-down and could not attend to any activities in connection with his work for a period of about a month. He was carried to Dr. C. H. Haddox in Pawnee for treatment, and this was the first time any examination was made of the claimant except the casual examination made by Dr. Melinder, camp surgeon, at the time of the accident. According to the affidavits and statements made during the investigation, this collapse was not caused by any scuffle between the claimant and his son Jack, but to some movement made by the claimant in rising from his chair. It is the opinion of both Dr. Haddox and Dr. Sisler that the conditions found in the claimant's back were due to some previous injury and could not have been caused by any injury sustained a few hours before Dr. Haddox examined him. No evidence has been found during this investigation of the claimant's ever having had any trouble with his back before the automobile accident.

6. According to Dr. Sisler and various witnesses questioned, the claimant's physical condition has been such as to prevent any except very light work since November 20, 1934, to the present; and it is Dr. Sisler's and Dr. Haddox's opinion that his condition will always remain about the same.

The only statements made contrary to the above were made by S. B. Cameron and J. A. Gilette of Skedee. Mr. Cameron is a business competitor of the claimant and inquiry revealed there has always been some bad feeling between them. Mr. Gilette is a close friend of Mr. Cameron's. Both made the statement they did not want to get "mixed up" in the case.

7. It was brought out in this investigation that, on the advice of his physician, the claimant has made several trips to Pogosa Springs, Colo., to take hot baths. As nearly as could be ascertained, six of these trips have been made at an estimated cost of $100 per trip.

8. It was necessary on account of the claimant's physical condition for him to lease his oil business to Fred Poos from July 1935 to March 20, 1938, on a percentage basis. The business was operated on a 50-50 basis during this period, and it is estimated that each realized an average of $137 per month from the business during that time. From the date of the accident, September 1934 to July 1935 and from April 1938 to date, it is estimated the claimant has paid an average of $60 per month for help in conducting his business that he would not have paid out had he been in good health.

9. In the absence of any records kept either by the claimant or Drs. Haddox and Sisler, the cost of doctors' bills, transportation, and incidental items to the claimant can only be estimated. These are estimated in the following amounts: To Dr. Haddox..

To Dr. Sisler..

To Dr. Huling.

Transportation

Trips to Pogosa Springs, Colo

Total_...

$30

345

10

75

600

1, 060

In addition to this it is estimated the claimant has paid out the amount of $225 for additional labor in making deliveries and in handling his business since September 1934. These figures cannot be substantiated from any records.

10. Since September 1934 the claimant had five children dependent on him for 1 year, four for another year, and two the last 2 years. He was 49 years old November 12, 1938.

11. From statements made by the doctors and others connected with the case and from my own observations of the claimant, his disability is estimated as a 50-percent permanent partial disability.

12. Finally, it is my opinion that the evidence in the files and evidence brought out in my investigation of the case show that Tom Kelly was permanently injured while riding as a passenger in Col. E. Walters' car when Colonel Walters' car was hit by a Civilian Conservation Corps truck, owned and operated by the United States Government; and the claimant is entitled to some compensation for the injuries sustained. The Government has already acknowledged its responsibility for the accident in paying Colonel Walters for damage to his car caused by the Civilian Conservation Corps truck

RECOMMENDATIONS

The statement of the claimant that he could have earned an average of $300 per month during the past 4 years is a matter of opinion and is controversial. Business conditions would have been one of the prime factors entering into this in connection with other things. Several of the individuals questioned stated they had purchased oil, gas, or kerosene from the claimant, but were not buying from him now. The causes given for purchasing products other than those dispensed by the claimant had nothing to do with any disability suffered by the claimant. The amount of money paid out for treatment for his injuries and that paid for additional labor made necessary by his inability to perform his work as usual is also a matter of conjecture.

The claimant's disability, while considered permanent, is not total, and the percentage of disability is estimated.

While it is realized the claimant does not come under the Oklahoma compensation law, it is necessary to work from some base in making a recommendation. The recommendation made is not based entirely on the compensation law, but in the absence of any dependable records it does afford some basis for making a just and fair settlement of the claim.

The injury suffered by the claimant is not enumerated specifically under paragraph 3, Permanent partial disability in the law, but comes under the paragraph "Other causes," in which it is stated: "In this class of disabilities the compensation shall be 66% per centum of the difference between his average weekly wages and his wage-earning capacity thereafter in the same employment or otherwise payable during the continuance of such partial disability, not to exceed three hundred weeks * * * "" Since we cannot arrive at any dependable figure of earnings before and after the accident, the only alternative is to allow a maximum of $18 per week for a period of 300 weeks, or a total of $5,400. Regardless of the fact that the difference in earnings of the claimant before and after the accident may be more than $18 per week, this is the maximum amount allowed under the law.

Therefore it is recommended that the claimant be paid the sum of $5,400 in full settlement of his claim.

H. W.RAINEY, Civilian Conservation Corps Inspector.

LUCILE SNIDER AND CLIFF SNIDER, JR.

JUNE 23, 1939.-Committed to the Committee of the Whole House and ordered to be printed

Mr. EBERHARTER, from the Committee on Claims, submitted the

following

REPORT

[To accompany H. R. 2096]

The Committee on Claims, to whom was referred the bill (H. R. 2096) for the relief of Lucile Snider and Cliff Snider, Jr., having considered the same, report favorably thereon with amendments and recommend that the bill as amended do pass.

The amendments are as follows:

Line 6, strike out the sign and figures "$5,000" and insert in lieu thereof "$1,000".

Line 7, strike out the sign and figures "$5,000" and insert in lieu thereof "$1,000".

At the end of the bill add

: Provided, That no part of the amount appropriated in this Act in excess of 10 per centum thereof shall be paid or delivered to or received by any agent or attorney on account of services rendered in connection with this claim, and the same shall be unlawful, any contract to the contrary notwithstanding. Any person violating the provisions of this Act shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor and upon conviction thereof shall be fined in any sum not exceeding $1,000.

The purpose of the proposed legislation is to pay to Lucile Snider, of Smithville, Ga., the sum of $1,000, and to Cliff Snider, Jr., of Smithville, the sum of $1,000, in full satisfaction of their claims against the United States for the death of their father, Cliff Snider, who was killed when the automobile in which he was a passenger was struck by a Civilian Conservation Corps truck, on October 25, 1936.

STATEMENT OF FACTS

In the Seventy-fifth Congress this Committee recommended the passage of S. 1865, a bill for the relief of Mrs. Cliff Snider and W. M. Jordan, in the amount of $13,225, in settlement of their damages growing out of the same accident. This bill became Private Law No. 337. The amount of $10,000 was allowed to Mrs. Snider for personal injuries sustained by her and for the death of her husband, Mr. Cliff Snider. It allowed $3,225 for the injuries sustained by Mr. Jordan, who was in the same car. A copy of the report accompanying this bill will be hereafter appended, to give the full details regarding the accident.

The present bill is for the relief of the two children, Lucile Snider and Cliff Snider, Jr. It has developed that Mrs. Cliff Snider, beneficiary under Private Law No. 337, Seventy-fifth Congress, was not the mother of these two children and had only been married to Mr. Snider a short time. She has assumed no obligation toward the children and has made no contribution toward their support and education.

As before stated, the money allowed in the previous act was for Mrs. Snider's own injury and the loss of her husband, and it is the opinion of your committee that these two children are also entitled to some compensation. The bill has been amended to provide $1,000 for each for educational purposes, which no doubt would have been provided by the father had he not been killed in the accident involved. It is recommended that the bill as amended pass. Appended hereto is a letter from Congressman Pace, together with copy of House Report No. 1337, Seventy-fifth Congress, first session.

CONGRESS OF THE UNITED STATES,

Hon. AMBROSE J. KENNEDY,
Chairman, Committee on Claims,

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, Washington, D. C., January 14, 1939.

House of Representatives, Washington, D. C.

DEAR MR. KENNEDY: I thank you for yours of the 13th with reference to H. R. 2096, for the relief of Lucile and Cliff Snider.

The circumstances of this case are such that I write to ask that you kindly have this bill referred to a subcommittee and give me an opportunity to present some of the pertinent facts to such committee.

It is true that Private Law No. 337, Seventy-fifth Congress, awarded damages to the deceased's widow, but this has resulted in no benefit to the children of the deceased. The widow is not the mother of these children and had been married to Mr. Snider for only a short time. She has assumed no obligation toward these children and has made no contribution toward their support and education. In fact, a substantial portion of the award made to the widow was used in paying hospital bills up to the time and since the award. The widow is permanently disabled. She was a music teacher and the nature of her injuries was such that she cannot pursue that work or any other gainful employment.

These two children are in destitute circumstances, have no means of support or of securing an education. Their father was their sole means of support, and I feel that the Government should be willing to make some contribution toward the loss they sustained through the death of their father, which death was caused by a Government agency.

I shall, therefore, appreciate your referring this bill to a subcommittee and advising me of its personnel.

Very truly yours,

STEPHEN PАСЕ,