The bid which you submitted in response to this invitation did not indicate that you were restricting deliveries to certain counties. A check mark alongside of one of the counties listed in the zone under schedule 3 of the bid invitation would not be interpreted by this office to mean that deliveries are restricted to that county, but rather as a check by you to be sure that the zone in which you were submitting a quotation included the right counties. Your quotation not being out of line with the quotations received from others for delivery of gasoline throughout this zone did not indicate a specially low price-that is, a price só much lower than the prices quoted by the other bidders as to indicate any question of doubt, and require clarification. This office is without authority to cancel your contract or relieve you from any of the contract conditions. It is therefore suggested that if you do not wish to accomplish deliveries with your equipment, it may be possible for you to arrange with others to cooperate with you in their accomplishment. Any failure on your part to effect delivery to any of the participating activities in this zone will be sufficient cause for such activities to purchase in the open market and charge all costs in excess of your maximum quoted price against your account. It is hoped that you can negotiate arrangements whereby these activities will not have cause to make open-market purchases. Very truly yours, Hon. CLIFTON E. MACK, Director, Procurement Division, Treasury Department. (Attention Miss Parkhurst.) HONORABLE SIR: Agreeable with the wishes of your representatives, I am submitting the following memorandum for your information: It was the purpose of the Daniel Baker Co. to submit a bid to furnish gasoline for the agencies of the Federal Government located in Clay County, Ky., for 3 months, beginning July 1, 1941. However, through a misunderstanding and misapprehension on the part of the Daniel Baker Co., owned by myself, my son, and my wife, it is now claimed by the Treasury Department that this company submitted a bid to furnish gasoline to four counties-Clay, Whitely, Knox, and Bell, in zone 15, Kentucky. Representing the Daniel Baker Co., I marked on one of the papers sent to me the county of Clay, indicating that that was the county we were bidding on. Our little business is located in Manchester, Clay County, Ky., working under a contract or franchise from the Shell Oil Co. which restricts our company to certain specified territory. It includes Clay County but does not include either Whitley, Knox, or Bell County. I have charge of the business of the Daniel Baker Co. and the first intimation I had that Whitley, Knox, and Bell Counties were included in this contract was when I received telephone calls from Federal agencies in Whitley and Bell Counties to deliver gasoline to them in those counties. I had no purchase orders to deliver gasoline in those counties, but I had received purchase orders to deliver gasoline to Federal agencies in Clay County. The Daniel Baker Co. could not furnish in any event Shell gasoline in Whitley, Knox, or Bell County because it does not have any contract or franchise from the Shell Oil Co. that would permit the Daniel Baker Co. to furnish gasoline in Whitley, Knox, or Bell County. The Daniel Baker Co. has no control over the Shell Oil Co. or its jobbers in Whitley, Bell, or Knox County. These jobbers, like the Daniel Baker Co., have no contact with the Shell Co. except to purchase Shell products and to resell same in certain specified territory. My wife, son, and myself were induced to buy out the Daniel Baker Co. for $7,500. It had a lot of run-down equipment. At that time we owned some real estate that would not sell for in excess of $4,500. It was necessary for us to borrow $4,500 and give our personal note to the bank for that sum and a mortgage on all of the real estate that we owned; and this cash was paid to the Daniel Baker Co. owners for its stock. We gave to those who held the stock of the Daniel Baker Co. our note to pay the other $3,000 and put up the $7,500 of stock to secure the $3,000 note. Since taking over this company, in order to carry on the business we borrowed an additional $600 from the bank and gave our personal note, secured by some of this Daniel Baker Co. stock. Neither we nor the Daniel Baker Co. whose stock we own have any appreciable assets. We have always tried to live honestly and carry out whatever contracts we might make. We can go along and carry out our contract as to Clay County, but it is humanly impossible to furnish any gasoline for Whitley, Knox, or Bell County, for the reasons that we do not have a permit from the Shell Co. to do so and because of our financial condition. In view of this mistake and misunderstanding on the part of the Daniel Baker Co. and the circumstances enumerated above, we ask to be relieved from furnishing any gasoline for the Federal agencies in Whitley, Knox, and Bell Counties. Of course, if the Government insists on holding the Daniel Baker Co. to this contract, it would close down our business in Clay County because we could not secure and furnish the gasoline for any part of it if the whole thing is attempted to be enforced. We do not expect to make any money out of the Clay County contract, but we shall do everything humanly possible and will understake to carry out the contract we understood we were entering. Respectfully, DANIEL BAKER Co., S. I. WOOTEN, F. M. MALOY, AND MRS. ALETHEA ARTHUR FEBRUARY 9, 1945.-Committed to the Committee of the Whole House and ordered to be printed Mr. CHENOWETH, from the Committee on Claims, submitted the following REPORT [To accompany H. R. 1757] The Committee on Claims, to whom was referred the bill (H. R. 1757) for the relief of S. I. Wooten, F. M. Maloy, and Mrs. Alethea Arthur, 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 in the Seventy-eighth Congress. The facts will be found fully set forth in House Report No. 794, Seventy-eighth Congress, which is appended hereto and made a part of this report. [H. Rept. No. 794, 78th Cong., 1st sess.] The purpose of the proposed legislation is to relieve S. I. Wooten and his sureties from liability to refund or pay to the United States the sum of $879.17, as his share of the liability as acting postmaster and postmaster at Bradenton, Fla., to relieve F. M. Maloy and his sureties in the amount of $6,000 as his share of the liability as assistant postmaster; and to relieve Mrs. Alethea Arthur and her sureties in the amount of $9,451.70 as her share of the liability as acting postmaster at the Bradenton post office, Bradenton, Fla., for a shortage in the accounts of the post office caused by the embezzlement by Clarence E. Dickey. STATEMENT OF FACTS It appears that Clarence E. Dickey, a clerk in the Bradenton, Fla., post office, was in charge of the postal-savings funds and while holding such position he converted to his own personal use during the administration of Mrs. Alethea Arthur as acting postmaster, the sum of $12,697.50; and during the administration of Mr. S. I. Wooten as postmaster, he converted the sum of $7,040.99 to his own personal use. The sum for which Mr. Wooten was technically liable was reduced to $6,879.17 by crediting $105.53, representing the deductions for his retirement fund from Mr. Dickey's salary during Mr. Wooten's incumbency, and $56.29 of salary due him at the time he was discharged. It appears from the evidence that Mr. Dickey had the entire confidence of both postmasters and all clerks in the post office. The monthly postal-savings reports that were later reviewed in determining the extent of the defalcations showed no entries or corrections leading to any suspicion of incompleteness or inaccuracy in the accounts. With all credits due Mr. Dickey there was a balance of $16,330.87, which is the aggregate sum carried by this bill. The evidence does not indicate that these three claimants were personally connected with the losses sustained. Mrs. Arthur who was technically liable for the largest amount appears to have been entirely inexperienced in post-office work. She completed the unexpired term of her deceased husband, W. Ê. Arthur. While the embezzlement was facilitated by inadequate supervision and the fact that Postmasters Arthur and Wooten and Assistant Postmaster Maloy placed too much reliance in the honesty and integrity of the former clerk, Dickey, it is clear that they were not otherwise culpable. As to the $6,000 charged to Mr. Maloy, this was the full penalty on his bond as assistant postmaster. The Post Office Department has no objection to the enactment of the proposed legislation. Mr. Dickey was suspended from the service July 31, 1941. He pleaded guilty at Tampa, Fla., on August 13, 1941, to an indictment charging him with the embezzlement of these funds. The United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co. paid the sum of $2,000 which was credited to the postal-savings account of former Postmaster Alethea Arthur. It appears from the record that Dickey, the former clerk, finding Mrs. Arthur lacking in experience in postal matters and willing to depend completely upon his representations to her as to the administration of the postal-savings branch, used her as a tool in his fraudulent practices. These same conditions appear to exist under the administration of Mr. Wooten also. Therefore, your committee is of the opinion that these people should be relieved of this liability, due to the fact they had no part or received any financial gain from the embezzlement of the funds by Clarence E. Dickey, and recommends favorable consideration to the proposed legislation. Appended hereto is the report from the Post Office Department and the Comptroller General of the United States, together with other pertinent evidence. Hon. DAN R. McGEHEE, Chairman, Committee on Claims, POST OFFICE DEPARTMENT, Washington, D. C., April 14, 1943. House of Representatives. MY DEAR MR. MCGEHEE: Your letter of March 4, 1943, requested a report upon H. R. 1760, a bill for the relief of S. I. Wooten. There are also pending before your committee H. R. 1758, for the relief of F. M. Maloy, and H. R. 1759, for the relief of Mrs. Alethea Arthur. These bills relate to embezzlement of $19,738.49 in postal savings funds by Clarence E. Dickey, a former clerk in the Bradenton, Fla., post office. It was determined by inspectors' investigations and review of records in this Department and the General Accounting Office that $12,697.50 was converted to the clerk's personal use during the administration of the office by Mrs. Alethea P. Arthur as acting postmaster, and $7,040.99 during the administration of the present postmaster, Mr. S. I. Wooten. The sum for which Mr. Wooten was technically liable was reduced to $6,879.17 by crediting $105.53, representing the deductions for his retirement fund from Mr. Dickey's salary during Mr. Wooten's incumbency, and $56.29 of salary due him at the time of his suspension from office. On April 30, 1942, the Chief Inspector was requested to take steps to collect the balance due, after applying all credits collected from Dickey's assets. Request was made to collect $6,000 from former Assistant Postmaster Finley M. Maloy or his surety, the Standard Accident Insurance Co. of Detroit. This was the full penalty on Mr. Maloy's bond. There was then remaining $879.17 stated, for accounting purposes, as a liability on Mr. Wooten's postal-savings account. It appears from the inspectors' findings that Mr. Dickey had the entire confidence of both postmasters and all clerks in the Bradenton post office. Monthly postal-savings reports that were later reviewed in determining the extent of the defalcations showed no entries or corrections leading to any suspicion of incompleteness or inaccuracy in the accounts. As indicated above, the amount embezzled by Clarence E. Dickey was $19,738.49 against which have been credited $2,000 collected from his surety; $1,245.80 representing Mr. Dickey's retirement deduction prior to the incumbency of Sam Wooten; $105.53 representing retirement deductions during the latter's incumbency, and $56.29 representing salary due Mr. Dickey at the time of his suspension from office, the total of these credits being $3,407.62 which items have reduced the net amount of the responsibility to $16,330.87, which is the aggregate sum carried by these three relief bills. It is not considered that any one of them was personally connected with the losses sustained. Mrs. Arthur, who was technically liable for the largest amount, appears to have been entirely inexperienced in post-office work. She completed the unexpired term of her deceased husband, the late Postmaster W. E. Arthur. While the embezzlement was facilitated by inadequate supervision and the fact that Postmasters Arthur and Wooten and Assistant Postmaster Maloy placed too much reliance in the integrity and honesty of former clerk Dickey, it is clear that they were not otherwise culpable. Therefore, this Department will offer no objection to the relief provided for in the bills. 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, Hon. DAN R. McGEHEE, GENERAL ACCOUNTING OFFICE, Chairman, Committee on Claims, House of Representatives. MY DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: Reference is made to H. R. 7552, H. R. 7553, and H. R. 7554, Seventy-seventh Congress, second session, bills now pending before your committee proposing to relieve Mrs. Alethea Arthur, former postmaster, S. I. Wooten, present postmaster, and F. M. Maloy, assistant postmaster at Bradenton, Fla., respectively, and their sureties, of any liability to refund or pay to the United States amounts apportioned to such persons as their share of the liability for the shortage in the accounts of said post office caused by the embezzlement of Clarence E. Dickey. For the use of your committee in the consideration of said bills, there is submitted the following report containing pertinent facts relative thereto as disclosed by the records of this office. It appears that Clarence E. Dickey was employed as a clerk in the Bradenton post office from 1925 until July 31, 1941. In an affidavit signed by him on June 12, 1941, a copy of which is on file in this office, he states in pertinent part as follows: "A little more than 4 years ago I began the practice of making applications for duplicate postal-savings certificates which had been issued to depositors. I signed the depositors' names to the applications for duplicates and took them to the postmaster for her certification. She did not question the transactions. postmaster at that time was Mrs. Alethea P. Arthur. The "About the middle of October 1939, Mr. Sam Wooten was appointed acting postmaster at Bradenton and he has been in charge of the office since that time. Since Mr. Wooten took charge of the office I had not prepared any forged applications for duplicate certificates. "When the owners of the original certificates, which had been duplicated on my forged applications, presented the originals for payment, I had to secure the money to cover them. * "Inspectors checked the Bradenton office at the time Mr. Wooten took charge. At that time there were no irregularities in my cash or accounts which would have been apparent, my manipulations prior to that time having been confined to the payment of duplicates issued on the forged applications. After that time, when original certificates, on which I had issued forged applications for duplicates and paid the duplicates, were presented, I paid the originals out of funds in my cash account and made up the shortage at the close of the statement period by failing to report certificates issued up to the close of the period. This practice has been carried along from day to day and from monthly statement to monthly statement, my statements of certificates issued and on hand all being falsified since that time. * |