Lapas attēli
PDF
ePub

After considering all the facts presented, your committee recommend that the proposed bill be favorably considered. Appended hereto is the report of the Navy Department, together with other pertinent information.

Hon. DAN R. McGEHEE,

Chairman of the Committee on Claims,

NAVY DEPARTMENT,
OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY,
Washington, May 27, 1944.

House of Representatives, Washington, D. C.

MY DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: The bill H. R. 3463, for the relief of Donna May McNulty was referred to the Navy Department by your committee with request for the opinion of the Navy Department as to its merits.

The purpose of the proposed legislation is to pay to Donna May McNulty, of Yreka, Calif., the wife of Dr. Stanley McNulty, formerly contract dentist at Guam and now reported to be a prisoner of Japan, the sum of $2,000.

Said sum is referred to in the bill as money due Dr. McNulty by the United States naval government of Guam or the Bank of Guam, for dental services rendered by him to civilians on the island of Guam but collected and retained by the United States naval government of Guam, with the further provision that in the subsequent settlement of the account of Dr. McNulty, the sum of $2,000 shall be charged to his account.

It appears that neither the amount due Dr. McNulty from the naval government of Guam, nor the amount to his personal credit in the Bank of Guam, can be definitely ascertained from any information that is now available. The records do indicate, however, that the amount of claims against the Bank of Guam will greatly exceed the bank's assets impounded in this country. It would appear, therefore, that legislation authorizing the payment to an individual of any amount representing a sum deposited in the Bank of Guam to his personal credit, would extend preferential treatment to such person and thus create a precedent for numerous cases, not only involving persons having interests in the assets of the Bank of Guam, but would also involve persons having interests in institutions in other areas captured by the enemy.

With respect to the amount claimed to have been collected by the naval government of Guam for services rendered by Dr. McNulty to civilians of the island of Guam and placed in the bank but not paid to Dr. McNulty, the Navy Department interposes no objection to the payment to his wife of a reasonable amount on this account. In the absence of any definite information as to the amount that may be involved, it is believed that payment of $2,000, as proposed in H. R. 3463, would not be justified. However, there is no objection to legislation providing relief on account in an amount not to exceed $1,000, which would furnish at least temporary relief to Mrs. McNulty.

The records of the Navy Department indicate that Mrs. McNulty has been receiving compensation at the rate of $90 a month under the provisions of the War Pay and Allowances Act of 1942, approved March 27, 1942 (56 Stat. 144), as amended by the act of December 24, 1942 (56 Stat. 1092; 50 U. S. C. secs. 1002-1006).

As Dr. McNulty, at the time of his alleged capture, was receiving $100 a month as a dentist in the United States Hospital at Guam, authority has been granted to the disbursing officer to increase the monthly allotment to Mrs. McNulty to $95, effective January 1, 1942, and continuing thereafter until further notice. This sum represents Dr. McNulty's gross pay of $100 per month less civil-service retirement deductions.

The cost of the proposed legislation is $2,000.

In view of the foregoing, the Navy Department recommends the enactment of the bill H. R. 3463 in the sum of $1,000.

The Navy Department has been advised by the Bureau of the Budget that there would be no objection to the submission of this recommendation.

Respectfully,

JAMES FORRESTAL.

NAVY DEPARTMENT,

Hon. JOHN H. TOLAN,

OFFICE OF THE CHIEF OF NAVAL OPERATIONS,
Washington, October 4, 1943.

House of Representatives, Washington, D. C.

MY DEAR MR. TOLAN: I have reference to the letter of the Secretary of the Navy addressed to you on September 14, 1943, in connection with the claim for the relief of Mrs. Donna May McNulty, Yreka, Calif., wife of Dr Stanley C. McNulty.

I am personally interested in this case by reason of my being Governor of Guam when Dr. McNulty served there.

At the request of the office of the Secretary of the Navy, I was consulted in establishing the background of this case. I take the liberty of enclosing a memorandum which I prepared, hoping it may serve you in this matter. The memorandum is complete as to detail but I shall be glad to be of service to you in an unofficial capacity should you have occasion to clear up any matters not covered in my background.

Sincerely yours,

AFFIDAVIT

J. T. ALEXANDER, Captain, United States Navy.

STATE OF CALIFORNIA,

County of Siskiyou, ss:

Donna Mae McNulty being first duly sworn, deposes and says

That she is the wife of Dr. Stanley McNulty now a prisoner of war of the Japanese; that she and the said Dr. Stanley McNulty have three children, Stanley, Jr., age 7, Don, and Jon, age 5.

That the following statements are made upon information and belief in that affiant had no particular knowledge of her husband's financial affairs and the information contained herein is based upon statements made by Dr. McNulty to affiant and the data gathered from various individuals who had knowledge of Dr. McNulty's financial arrangement with the Navy Department:

That Dr. Stanley McNulty was a civilian employee of the Navy Department stationed upon Guam; that his compensation came from the following sources: $100 monthly from the leper and special funds, and $200 monthly to be paid from a fund built up by Dr. McNulty from fees received for dental services, the arrangement being that any sum in excess of $200 a month was to be deposited in the Bank of Guam and was to be paid to Dr. McNulty, after deducting certain expenses, upon the 1st day of January 1943; that affiant believes that this sum was in excess of $3,000 upon December 8, 1942;

That affiant's information and belief is further based upon the fact that upon the two communications received from Dr. McNulty since his imprisonment by the Japanese, he has inquired regarding the funds due him from the naval government at Guam.

DONNA MAE MCNULTY.

Subscribed and sworn to before me this 3d day of November 1943. (SEAL]

BARBARA WARNER,

Notary Public in and for the County of Siskiyou, State of California.

[ocr errors][merged small]
[graphic][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed]

STATEMENTS OF FACTS

In June 1929 the Bureau of Air Commerce purchased a site for an emergency landing field on the air route between Kansas City, Mo., and Amarillo, Tex. The site chosen was about 25 miles southwest of Kansas City and about 3 miles from Gardner, Kans. Subsequently, the Bureau graded the site and the ditches along the west and east sides.

However, the "southwest drain" was not installed until 1938.

Mr. Armstrong's claim was based on damages caused during the period 1931–38, approximately 7 years.

On April 19, 1936, Mr. Armstrong addressed a letter to the author of the bill, Congressman Guyer, about the results produced by the leveling of the land and the construction of the ditches as they then existed. He stated in his letter that he was the owner of a farm of 160 acres adjoining the field purchased by the Government, and that in the leveling off of the Government property and draining of same with ditches, tiling, etc., a fast flow of water was being caused to result from each heavy rainfall, and that his land had been badly washed.

He further pointed out that the land which he owned had been in his family for over 50 years and had always been well taken care of, with no ditches that could not be readily crossed with any kind of a farm implement. At that time, however, due to the rapidity of the flow of the water, his land was so badly cut up with ditches that they could not even be crossed on horseback, and the condition was getting worse each year. He also pointed out that there had been 40 acres or more of land that drained in the opposite direction, and the natural watershed was changed and at that time was draining across his land. He contended that the damage was permanent and would continue to increase each year. This complaint was referred to the Bureau of Air Commerce, and the district manager of the Bureau, Mr. Elliott, reported that the civil engineer of his office had recently investigated the damage reported by Mr. Armstrong and by another neighbor. In his report, Mr. Elliott confirmed a number of Mr. Armstrong's statements. As a result of Mr. Elliott's report, the Bureau of Air Commerce subsequently made plans for installing the "southwest drain," above referred to. This drain was completed sometime in the summer of 1938.

The Civil Aeronautics Authority in its report to your committee dated August 1, 1939, stated, in part, as follows:

"Although the fault of which Mr. Armstrong complained by his letter of April 19, 1936, has now been corrected, there was a period of approximately 7 years (1931 to 1938) when our predecessor agency was wrongfully diverting the water from 45 acres of land from its natural course of drainage and causing it to flow down the Armstrong ravine. It will be difficult, however, to estimate the amount of damages which Mr. Armstrong is entitled to recover for that 7 years of excess flow."

Also contained in the Civil Aeronautics Authority's report is information to the effect that Mr. Armstrong at one time was willing to make an agreement with a representative of that agency to accept $175 per year as an estimate of a fair annual compensation for the damages he was suffering, which would aggregate compensation for the 7-year period amounting to $1,225.

In a subsequent report, however, the Civil Aeronautics Authority submitted certain additional information and evidence, and concluded by expressing the opinion that Mr. Armstrong has no valid claim against the United States for damages to his property, and stating further that if it should be decided by the Committee on Claims that Mr. Armstrong has a valid claim for damages, it is the opinion of the Authority that $3,000, as asked for in the original bill, is ex

« iepriekšējāTurpināt »