issuance of money orders, and there was no verification of the abstract by other employees. This is contrary to instructions in the First Assistant's letter of June 5, 1930. "3. It may be held that in some degree it was possible for Clerk Mooney to conceal his embezzlements, and therefore to continue in them, by the failure of the postmaster to carry out the instructions relative to the verification of abstracts of issued orders. "4. However, in order to have detected the peculations of Mooney by a verification of the abstract of issued money orders, it would have been necessary to have compared the entries in the abstract with the stubs of issued orders. It has, however, been common practice at most offices to verify the entries in the abstract by comparison with money-order applications, and the instructions in the first assistant's letter of June 5, 1930, do not instruct or advise any particular method of verification. Had the entries in the abstract been compared with applications, in this case, it would still have been possible for Mooney to have embezzled, and to have concealed his embezzlements in the manner in which he actually did so. "5. We are therefore of the opinion that the shortage in this case was not made possible by the neglect of the postmaster at Hartford to observe the terms of the instructions of the first assistant, and that even had the instructions been carried out to the letter, the peculations might still have occurred. Therefore, we have not made a deduction from the postmaster's rating on account of the misappropriation of funds in this case. "6. The postmaster has now instructed supervisors in the money-order section to see that the abstracts are compared daily with the stubs of issued orders, which will prevent a recurrence of conditions cited herein." This Office is not wholly in agreement with the conclusion stated in the report, supra, to the effect that the shortage in this case was not made possible by the neglect to the postmaster. The facts show that there was lack of proper supervision over the conduct of the employee in the transaction of the money-order business. Where there is failure in the proper supervision of business of this character it is difficult to perceive why such failure would not contribute to possible peculation or in a degree be conducive thereto. It is not apparent to this Office why the Government, rather than Mr. Gilson or his surety, should bear this loss. The sole purpose of requiring bonds from public officers and employees is to protect the United States against loss. Therefore, in view of the facts and circumstances herein stated, and especially because the enactment of a law such as here proposed might establish a precedent encouraging laxity in supervision of subordinates in the public service, I am unable to recommend favorable action on bill S. 2504. If the Congress believes that relief should be granted, it is suggested that the amount, $688.96, in line 5, be stricken out and that the amount, $682.64 be inserted in lieu thereof to correspond with the status of the postmaster's account as hereinbefore shown. Sincerely yours, R. N. ELLIOTT, Acting Comptroller General of the United States. О L. W. MAREK, JR. JULY 13, 1939.-Committed to the Committee of the Whole House and ordered to be printed Mr. KEOGH, from the Committee on Claims, submitted the following REPORT [To accompany H. R. 5514) The Committee on Claims, to whom was referred the bill (H. R. 5514) for the relief of L. W. Marek, Jr., 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, strike out lines 10, 11, and 12; and page 2, line 1, strike out the word "Texas" and insert in lieu thereof the following language: "operation of a tractor in the service of Works Progress Administration Work Project No. 2485, Milam County, Texas. The purpose of the proposed legislation is to pay the sum of $3,500 to L. W. Marek, Jr., in full settlement of his claim against the United States for personal injuries sustained by him as a result of the negligent operation of a tractor in the service of Works Progress Administration work project No. 2485, Milam County, Tex., on March 6, 1936. STATEMENT OF FACTS The claimant, Lee Marek, Jr., was employed as a truck driver on a Works Progress Administration project near Cameron, Tex., as a result of his father's having been awarded a contract for the rental of one 1935 Ford truck, including the services of an operator for use on said project. Mr. Marek, Sr., had furnished his son as the operator of the truck. The Works Progress Administration project involved was a gravelpit project, and on March 6, 1936, Marek, Jr., had driven his truck up to the pit just after they had been blasting. He was waiting at the edge of the pit, when the foreman of the project, Mr. Vernon Fontaine, told him to drive down into the pit for loading. He did this, and while his truck was being loaded, upon instructions by the foremen, he got out of the truck. At this time a Mr. Guy Carroll, who was a tractor driver, was engaged in loosening a big rock at the bottom of the pit. In order to do this, Carroll fastened one end of a steel cable to the tractor and wrapped the other end around the truck. At the end of the cable, which was wrapped around the rock, was a hook, which hook was fastened to the cable with two bolts. Carroll failed to tighten these bolts, so that when he put a strain on the cable by moving the tractor the end of the cable slipped out of the hook, and the hook flew wild, striking Marek, Jr., on his left leg. There is some dispute in the records as to Carroll's actual status of employment at the time of the accident. It is contended by some that while he had been an employee of Milam County, his tractor and his services were at the time of the accident under lease to the Works Progress Administration project and that the county was being credited by the Works Progress Administration for his services and that of his tractor. However, another contention is that Carroll had been, and was at the time of the accident, an employee of Milam County, and that no reimbursement was ever made to the county by the Works Progress Administration for his services, the tractor and services being furnished to the project by the county as part of its contribution. Your committee is of the opinion that the question of who was actually paying for the services of Carroll and the tractor at the time of the accident is immaterial, inasmuch as it is not disputed by anyone, including the Works Progress Administration and the employees on the project, that both Carroll and Marek, Jr., were under the direct supervision of the project head, Fontaine, when the accident occurred. Carroll admits that it was an oversight on his part in not tightening the bolts before attempting to start up the tractor; and Fontaine, the project supervisor, admits that it was an oversight on his part in not having previously inspected this particular part of the equipment before the work was begun. He states that he expected Carroll to attend to the matter. Fontaine also admits that he was the sole supervisor in charge of the actual operation of the project and that everybody working at the gravel pit or around it on that particular project was under his supervision and taking orders from him. He also admits that although several employees of the project were paid by the county for their services, they, too, were under his orders, and that as superintendent of the project he could discharge or cause to be removed any or all of the employees who gave unsatisfactory service. He further admits that at the time of the accident no one was violating any of his orders and that Marek was doing as he had been instructed to do. In other words, the whole cause of the accident was the negligent operation of the tractor by Carroll and the negligence on the part of Supervisor Fontaine in not ascertaining that the tractor was in proper condition to be operated on his project. As before stated, it is considered entirely immaterial whether or not Carroll was actually being paid by Works Progress Administration money or by county money. The fact remains that regardless of whose tractor he was operating or whose money he was receiving, the accident would not have occurred except for Carroll's negligence and that of the project supervisor, while both were performing on and for a Works Progress Administration project. Marek has no claim through the Employees' Compensation Commission, inasmuch as he was working under a contract and was not an actual employee of the United States Government. Any relief for him must, therefore, be provided through the medium of a special act of Congress. He was only 21 years of age at the time of the accident, and as a result of this accident he received a broken leg and was necessitated to remain in the hospital for approximately 5 months. His left leg has been left about an inch shorter than his right, and inasmuch as he was working at the time in an effort to earn enough to continue his education at the University of Texas, his education was also handicapped. The actual expenses incurred amounted to $2,315.25, and considerable evidence to substantiate the extent of his injuries and expenses incurred will be hereafter appended. Your committee considers the claim just and meritorious in every respect and recommends passage of the bill. Appended hereto are the reports of the Works Progress Administration and Employees' Compensation Commission, together with other pertinent evidence. Hon. AMBROSE J. KENNEDY, WORKS PROGRESS ADMINISTRATION, House of Representatives, Washington, D. C. MY DEAR CONGRESSMAN KENNEDY: On April 6, 1938, this Administration acknowledged receipt of your letter of April 4, 1938, enclosing a copy of H. R. 9927, a bill for the relief of L. W. Marek, Jr., and advised that our State administration had been requested to forward a complete report. The report of our State administration has been received. The bill proposes to appropriate the sum of $5,000 to L. W. Marek, Jr., of Cameron, Tex., "for damages sustained by said L. W. Marek, Jr., as a result of personal injuries sustained by him, occasioned by the negligent act of an employee of the United States of America, while said L. W. Marek, Jr., was likewise employed and working at a gravel pit about 4 miles south of Pettibone, Tex., on the 6th day of March 1936." The files of this Administration disclose that Lee W. Marek, Sr., father of claimant, was awarded a contract (ER-TPS-66-8730) on February 17, 1936, for the rental of one 1935 Ford truck, 12 yards' capacity, license No. 17395, including the services of an operator, for use on a gravel-pit project of this Administration near Cameron, Tex., which was sponsored by the county of Milam, Tex.; that the truck was not in proper operating condition, and he purchased a new truck for his son, Lee W. Marek, Jr.; and that, as his son was a minor, he signed the purchase contract for the new truck and agreed with his son for the latter to keep all rental payments received on the truck, payments on the purchase of the truck to be made in installments. Pursuant to the agreement between the Government and the county of Milam, the latter furnished a tractor, cable, and operators as part of its contribution to the project. It appears that on March 6, 1936, at about 3:45 p. m., the tractor, being operated by an employee of the county, was pulling a large boulder from the gravel pit; that the cable was fastened around the boulder by means of a steel hook and bolts; that as the cable tightened, the hook separated from the cable and struck Lee W. Marek, Jr., who was standing approximately 15 feet from the boulder watching the operations; and that the blow caused a compound comminuted fracture to his left leg just below the knee. A recent physician's report indicates that claimant's left leg is now shorter than his right leg by 1 inch and that a pathological condition still exists. As indicated in our letter of April 6, 1938, a claim for compensation (WP-132760) was presented to the United States Employees' Compensation Commission and disallowed on the ground that Lee W. Marek, Jr., was not an employee of the United States. Your committee may desire to request the Commission to render a report concerning the workmen's compensation aspects of the proposed legislation. If responsibility for the accident upon the Federal Government is predicated upon negligence of employees of the United States, as contradistinguished from workmen's compensation as an incident to the relationship of employer and employee between the United States and claimant, this Administration desires to point out that no employee of the United States was involved in the accident and that the county of Milam furnished the tractor, cable, and operator. Our State administration is being advised to refer the matter to the county of Milam, Tex., for consideration by the county of its responsibility for this accident. Accordingly, this Administration deems it necessary to recommend against enactment of the proposed legislation. Photostatic copies of pertinent papers from the files of this Administration are enclosed. Sincerely yours, Hon. AMBROSE J. KENNEDY, Chairman, Committee on Claims, CORRINGTON GILL, Assistant Administrator. WORKS PROGRESS ADMINISTRATION, House of Representatives, Washington, D. C. MY DEAR CONGRESSMAN KENNEDY: Your records will disclose your letter of April 27, 1938, transmitting additional statements filed with your committee by the Honorable W. R. Poage Member of Congress, in connection with H. R. 9927, a bill for the relief of L. W. Marek, Jr., and requesting a further report in the matter, after review of these statements. The further investigation solicited from our State administration for Texas, concerning which I advised you under date of April 30, 1938, has been received, and I am now pleased to comply with your request. In its report of April 18, 1938, to your committee, this Administration found that no employee of the United States had been involved in the accident in which claimant sustained his injury, and that, in addition to having furnished the tractor operator, the county of Milam, Tex., had supplied the tractor and cable. Predicated on these findings, the Administration recommended against enactment of the proposed legislation. It appears, however, that the Administration's findings are controverted on behalf of claimant, the contention being made that Guy Carroll, tractor operator, was an employee of the Works Progress Administration on the date of the accident and that the tractor was "leased" to the Works Progress Administration. In support of this position, affidavits of R. G. Stidham, commissioner of precinct No. 2, Milam County, Tex., and Guy Carroll are submitted. In his affidavit of July 20, 1937, Mr. Stidham avers that "Mr. Guy Carroll was the driver of the tractor and is a regular employee of the county of Milam, but on the said 6th day of March 1936 and for some time prior thereto he had been loaned to the Works Progress Administration in accordance with the terms and provisions of the said above project, and the salary of the said Carroll was on the above date being paid out of funds belonging to the said above project. Mr. Carroll was engaged as a tractor operator.' In his affidavit of July 20, 1937, Guy Carroll states that he had been employed by Milam County as a truck driver and tractor operator for a number of years; that immediately prior to, and on, March 6, 1936, although so employed by the county of Milam, he was "loaned" to the Works Progress Administration for work in connection with project No. 2484 (work project No. 2485, official project No. 65-66-192); that the Works Progress Administration reimbursed the county in the full amount of his salary while he was engaged in working on the project; and that while the tractor in question was owned by the county, it was under "contract" to the Works Progress Administration. In a previous affidavit, dated July 10, 1937, Mr. Carroll refers to this tractor as having been "leased" to the Works Progress Administration. The report of George S. Morgan, State director, division of finance, Works Progress Administration for Texas, dated May 18, 1938, and supporting evidence therewith, photostatic copies of which are enclosed, in the opinion of this Administration completely and definitely refute claimant's contentions and clearly establish the facts that Guy Carroll was an employee of the county of Milam prior to, and on, March 6, 1936; that no reimbursement was ever made to the county by the Works Progress Administration for his services; and that the tractor and cable were furnished to the project by the county as part of its con |