« iepriekšējāTurpināt »
The fiscal effect of the bill is manifest.
The Bureau of the Budget advises that it is its view that the sum of $3,853.58, which the War Department recommends as an award for personal injuries, is somewhat greater than would appear to be warranted by the extent of the injuries. Sincerely yours,
HENRY L. STIMSON,
Secretary of War.
THE STATE OF TEXAS,
County of Jasper: Before me, the undersigned authority, on this day personally appeared Boyd B. Black, known to me to be a credible person, who, after being by me duly sworn upon his oath, deposes and says:
My name is Boyd B. Black. I am now 37 years of age and have been a resident of Jasper, Jasper County, Tex., for 25 years, or more.
On the night of May 24, 1943, I suffered serious bodily injury in the town of Jasper when a United States Army truck struck the rear of my parked truck, knocking my truck upon the sidewalk and pinning me against a trick wall, crushing my pelvis and doing other damages as stated in my claim.
My physical condition now will not permit me to do heavy manual labor such as I was doing at the time of the accident. I am not qualified to do jobs of a clerical nature and the accident has impaired my earning capacity for the balance of my natural life.
Boyd B. BLACK. Subscribed and sworn to by Boyd B. Black this 30th day of January 1945. (SEAL)
GARLAND SMITH, Notary Public in and for Jasper County, Ta.
THE STATE OF TEXAS,
County of Jasper: Before me, the undersigned authority, on this day personally appeared W. L. Neal, known to me to be a credible person, who, after being by me duly sworn, upon his oath deposes and says: My name is W. L. Neal. I have resided in Jasper, Jasper County, Tex., for
I am manager of Service Garage in Jasper, Jasper County, Tex., and have been in the automobile and garage business for 16 years.
I have been personally and well acquainted with Boyd Black, a resident of Jasper County, Tex., for 20 years or more.
I understand, on or about 24th day of May 1943, he suffered a serious bodily injury in the town of Jasper when a United States Army truck struck his truck in the rear while it was parked in the street and knocked his truck onto the sidewalk, pinning him against a brick wall, crushing his pelvis, and doing other damages to his person.
At and before his injury he was associated in business with his father in Black Lumber Co. here in Jasper. I understand that he was drawing a salary of $100 per month from the Black Lumber Co. at the time of his injury and had been for sometime prior to such injury for such services. I further understand that he did extra hauling after work hours for the lumber company and this money was for his personal benefit and by means of which he earned several additional dollars per month, the extra amount of which is not known to me. I have been informed that all of this information has been duly presented to the claims department of the United States Army.
W. L. NEAL Sworn to and subscribed before me by W. L. Neal, this 30th day of January 1945.
JESSIE SWANN SMITH,
State of Texas. THE STATE OF TELAO Jasper:
County Before me, the undersigned authority, on this day personally appeared Garland Smith, known to me to be a credible person, who, after being by me duly sworn, upon his oath deposes and says:
My name is Garland Smith. I have resided in Jasper County, Tex., for more than 40 years. I am a lawyer and abstracter by profession.
I have been personally and well acquainted with Boyd Black, a resident of Jasper, Tex., for 20 years or more.
On or about the 24th day of May 1943 he suffered a serious bodily injury in the town of Jasper when a United States Army truck struck his truck in the rear while it was parked in the street and knocked his truck onto the sidewalk and pinned him against a brick wall, crushing his pelvis and doing other damages to his person.
At and before his injury he was associated in business with his father in Black Lumber Co. here in Jasper. I understand that he was drawing a salary of $100 per month from the Black Lumber Co. at the time of his injury and had been for some time prior to such injury for such services. I further understand that he did extra hauling after work hours for the lumber company and this money was for his personal benefit and by means of which he earned several additional dollars per month, the exact amount of which is not known to me. I have been informed that all this information has been duly presented to the claims department of the United States Army.
GARLAND SMITH. Subscribed and sworn to by Garland Smith this 30th day of January 1945. (SEAL)
JESSIE SWANN SMITH, Notary Public in and for Jasper County, State of Texas.
JASPER, TEX., December 30, 1944. To Whom It May Concern:
This is to certify that Boyd Black, of Jasper, Tex., reported to my office today, December 30, 1944, for physical examination. He gave history of injury as of May 24, 1943.
His statement of today is much the same as formerly stated, weakness in lower back and legs. He tires with normal exercise and unable to pass urine at intervals. He also states he is unable to have a normal erection as before the injury. He also complains of severe lower back pain after lifting.
His physical condition is unchanged since my former report, and I still have to use sounds at intervals to enable him to pass his urine.
I have occasion to see him at intervals of 2 or 3 weeks, and he has improved about as much as expected, and as formerly stated I consider him 25 to 35 percent permanently disabled, without hope of further improvement. Yours truly,
H. W. HARDY, M. D. RICHARDSON HOSPITAL
Jasper, Tex., January 30, 1945. This is to certify that I saw Boyd Black, Jasper, Tex., May 24, 1943, when he was struck or injured by Army truck. I helped handle him and transfer him to Hardy Hancock Hospital immediately after he received the injury. He was shocked and could not stand up or walk. Pelvis bones broken and urethratorn or punctured. Was treated here and also Houston, Tex. Mr. Black has only partly recovered from his injuries received on above date.
My opinion is that he has permanent disability and that he will never be able to do manual labor. Very respectfully,
A. J. RICHARDSON, M. D. O
PENNSYLVANIA COAL & COKE CORPORATION
FEBRUARY 27, 1945.—Committed to the Committee of the Whole House and
ordered to be printed
Mr. Krogh, from the Committee on Claims, submitted the following
[To accompany H. R. 2186)
The Committee on Claims, to whom was referred the bill (H. R. 2186) for the relief of Pennsylvania Coal & Coke Corporation, having considered the same, report favorably thereon without amendment and recommend that the bill do pass.
A similar bill was favorably reported by this committee during the Seventy-eighth Congress.
The facts will be found fully set forth in House Report No. 397, Seventy-eighth Congress, which is appended hereto and made a part of this report.
The bill is written in accordance with recommendation of the Comptroller General of the United States.
(H. Rept. No. 397, 78th Cong., 1st sess.' The purpose of the proposed legislation is to authorize and direct the Comptroller General of the United States to credit the account of the Pennsylvania Coal & Coke Corporation, of New York, N. Y., in the amount of $24,540.02, representing the amount deducted from contracts Nos. Tps-20037 and Tps-20041, dated October 26, and November 10, 1937, respectively, for the furnishing of coal to the Treasury Department.
STATEMENT OF FACTS
The claimant, Pennsylvania Coal & Coke Corporation, entered into two contracts, Nos. Tps-20037 and Tps-20041, dated October 26, 1937, and November 10, 1937, respectively, with the Procurement Division of the United States Treasury Department, for the furnishing of coal for said Department.
Each contract was expressly made subject to paragraph 9 of schedule No. 1 (special conditions) to “Specifications and Proposals Issued by the Treasury Department, Procurement Division, Branch of Supply, Washington, D. C.”, which provided:
"In the event that the National Bituminous Coal Commission shall establish during the period of this contract a minimum price for the size of coal produced at the mine named in the contract which is more than the contract price for such
size coal, the contract price shall be increased to the minimum price so established by the Commission for all coal shipped from the mine and delivered after the effective date of the establishment of such minimum price.”
The contract also provided for renewal for successive 30-day periods until the Commission should establish a minimum price, and for another period of 60 days after the establishment of such price. The final portion of the paragraph states
the price to be paid during such renewal periods shall be the contract price or the minimum price, if any, established by the Commission effective on dates of shipment from the mine named in the contract."
It is apparent that the Government made the language part of each contract with the clear expectation that it would be required to pay an increased price if the Commission issued an appropriate order.
The Government exercised its right to extend the contract periods. Then, on November 30, 1937, the National Bituminous Coal Commission issued order No. 89, under which, effective December 16, 1937, minimum prices were established for the coal to be delivered under the two contracts.
These prices were somewhat in excess of the contract prices. The Government, in accordance with the language of paragraph 9 (quoted above), accepted vouchers calling for these higher prices, and payment at those rates was actually made and received by the Corporation.
On February 24, 1939, the National Bituminous Coal Commission issued Order No. 230, revoking, effective 11:59 p. m. on February 25, 1939, the minimum price theretofore in effect. Nothing in the order indicated that it was retroactive.
Meanwhile, the Corporation had been supplying the Government with coal pursuant to additional contracts. In making a routine payment on its March 1939 accounts in accordance with such additional contracts, the Government deducted the sum of $24,540.02. This amount represents the difference between the original contract price on contracts Nos. Tps-20037 and Tps-20041 and the minimum prices paid pursuant to National Bituminous Coal Commission Order No. 89 during the period from December 16, 1937, through February 13, 1938.
On April 19, 1939, the Corporation wrote the Comptroller General to complain of the deduction. The Comptroller General replied under date of September 14, 1939, certifying that no balance was found due from the United States on the ground that doubt had arisen concerning the validity of the orders of the National Bituminous Coal Commission. The Comptroller General further stated that the amount in question was required to be deducted "but without prejudice to the contractor's right to submit a reclaim therefor in the event it shall be judicially determined that the United States is legally liable for such difference in prices."
As shown by their reports, the Comptroller General and the Treasury Department make no recommendation, merely stating that their offices could not recog. nize the minimum price schedules as legal and binding under the contacts in the absence of a judicial determination that the United States was legally liable for the difference between the contracts and the scheduled minimum prices.
The Corporation and the United States entered into the two contracts with full knowledge of the statute creating the National Bituminous Coal Commission and in contemplation of the fact that minimum prices would be established by the Commission. The inclusion of paragraph 9 makes this clear. The deduction of the sum of $24,540.02 constitutes a disavowal by the Government of an obligation entered into willingly on its part. The Government is considered not only legally, but morally, bound by this provision of the contract, and the relief afforded by the proposed legislation is equitable and just.
Furthermore, it is further submitted that only by reason of the accidental fact that the Government was indebted to the Corporation was it possible for the Comptroller General to obtain “repayment" of the sum in question so informally, that is, by deducting it from moneys due the claimant under other contracts. Under other circumstances, the sum could not have been deducted; the Government would have had to sue for the alleged overpayment and thus bring the precise question up for judicial determination.
Your committee, therefore, recommend favorable consideration of the proposed legislation.
Appended hereto are the reports of the Treasury Departmet and the Comptroller General, together with other pertinent evidence, all of which is made s part of this report.