« iepriekšējāTurpināt »
repeal of that act by the Nationality Act. Under this interpretation, the legislation under consideration would appear to be unnecessary.
The courts, however, have reached divergent conclusions on the matter. Some courts, including the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Illinois, have adopted the position taken by this Department (Watson v. United States, decided December 10, 1941 (unreported)). On the other hand, the United States District Court for the District of Maryland (Shelley v. United States, 120 F. (2d) 734), and the United States District Court for the District of Columbia adopted the opposite view.
In the light of this conflict of judicial authority, it appears desirable to clarify the existing law by legislation. Accordingly, I find no objection to the enactment of the bill.
I have been advised by the Director of the Bureau of the Budget that there is no objection to the submission of this report. Sincerely yours,
FRANCIS BIDDLE, Attorney General. The committee unanimously recommends that the bill do pass,
CHANGES IN - EXISTING LAW
In compliance with paragraph 2a of rule XIII of the rules of the House of Representatives, changes in existing law made by this bill are shown as follows (existing law in which no change is made is printed in roman; omitted matter is printed within black brackets; the new matter is printed in italics):
The Nationality Act of 1940, as amended
Sec. 317 (b) (1). From and after the effective date of this Act, a woman, who was a citizen of the United States at birth, and who has or is believed to have lost her United States citizenship solely by reason of her marriage prior to September 22, 1922, to an alien, and whose marital status with such alien has or shall have terminated, or who has resided continuously in the United States since the date of such marriage, if no other nationality was acquired by affirmative act other than such marriage, shall, from and after the taking of the oath of allegiance prescribed by subsection (b) of section 335 of this Act, be deemed to be a citizen of the United States to the same extent as though her marriage to said alien had taken place on or after September 22, 1922.
DANE D. MORGAN
FEBRUARY 21, 1945.-Committed to the Committee of the Whole House and
ordered to be printed
Mr. PITTENGER, from the Committee on Claims, submitted the
[To accompany H. R. 1149)
The Committee on Claims, to whom was referred the bill (H. R. 1149) for the relief of Dane D. Morgan, having considered the same, report favorably thereon without amendment and recommend that the bill do pass.
The purpose of the proposed legislation is to authorize and direct the Comptroller General of the United States to settle and adjust the claim of Dane D. Morgan, on account of increased cost incurred in the performance of his architectural-engineering contract with the Federal Works Agency by reason of unavoidable delays in the construction and completion of the defense housing project at Burlington, Iowa, and to allow in full and final settlement of the claim the amount of not to exceed $8,400.
STATEMENT OF FACTS The facts are that Dane D. Morgan contracted to provide architectural-engineering services in connection with the construction of 400 prefabricated demountable housing units as part of defense-housing project "Iowa 13015," Burlington, Iowa, under contract No. WA-1197, dated February 9, 1942, entered into with the Federal Works Agency
Prior to the execution of his contract Mr. Morgan discussed with the contracting officer the question of the period of performance of the construction work and was advised, apparently, that the project work would be completed within 150 days, with 120 days being allowed for construction. The contract, however, contained no pro
. vision limiting the time of performance. Subsequently, due to various delays, it became necessary for the architect-engineer to furnish supervisory services under his contract for a much longer period than had been contemplated at the time the contract was executed, thereby sustaining considerable loss in the performance of the contract.
At this date the architect-engineer has agreed to accept the sum of $8,400 in full and final settlement of his claim. This case was submitted to the Comptroller General who has recommended to the Congress that an appropriation in the amount of $8,400 be made for the payment of the claim.
This proposed legislation was submitted to the Speaker of the House of Representatives by the Comptroller General of the United States for consideration. Your committee has carefully considered the bill and recommend favorable consideration to same. Appended hereto is the recommendation of the Comptroller General of the United States, which is self-explanatory.
GENERAL ACCOUNTING OFFICE,
Washington, December 15, 1944. The CONGRESS:
Pursuant to the act of April 10, 1928 (45 Stat. 413), I have the honor to make the following report and recommendation concerning the claim of Dane D. Morgan, Burlington, Iowa, for additional compensation to cover certain architecturalengineering services furnished in connection with the construction of 400 prefabricated demountable housing units as part of defense housing project "Iowa 13015," Burlington, Iowa, under contract No. WA-1197, dated February 9, 1942, entered into with the Federal Works Agency.
Naturally it was realized by the architect-engineer that the period of time during which he would be required to furnish field engineering and supervisory services on the project was a material factor for consideration in fixing the price for which he would agree to perform the contract. Consequently, the question as to the period of performance of the construction work was discussed with the contracting officer prior to the execution of the contract and that official appears to have advised the architect-engineer that the project work would be completed within 150 days, with 120 days being allowed for construction. However, the contract as formulated and executed by the parties contained no provision limiting the time of performance but, on the contrary, provided under article 1 thereof that, for and in consideration of payment of the amount of $28,930.60, the contractor would
* render such architectural-engineering services as may be required by the Administrator for the construction of the project
Also by the terms of article 2 (e) of the contract it was provided that the contractor would
perform all necessary field engineering supervision and inspection during construction."
On February 24, 1942, the administration of the housing project was transferred to the Federal Public Housing Authority pursuant to Executive Order 9070. Thereafter, on May 26, 1942, the latter agency executed the contract for the prefabrication and erection of the houses, which provided for completion of such work within 120 days. However, due to delays resulting principally from the reorganization required under Executive Order 9070, supra, and from difficulties encountered in procuring the necessary materials for the work, the project was not completed until on or about August 28, 1943. It therefore became necessary for the architect-engineer to furnish supervisory services under his contract for a much longer period than had been contemplated at the time the contract was executed thereby sustaining a considerable loss in the performance of the contract. The architect-engineer originally claimed the sum of $11,575.48 in addition to the contract price but now has agreed to accept the sum of $8,400 in full and final settlement of his claim.
Under the above-quoted provisions of the contract the architect-engineer agreed to render such services as might be required "for the construction of the project" and "during construction.” Furthermore, the contract made no provision for any increase in the contract price in the event the time during which the services would be required to be rendered should be longer than anticipated. Hence, the contractor performed no services in addition to those required under the plain terms of the contract and the claim for additional compensation is not a legal
claim which may be adjusted under any appropriation heretofore made. However, in view of all the facts and circumstances connected with the making and performance of the contract, the claim does, in my judgment, contain such elements of equity as to be deserving of the consideration of the Congress. Accordingly, I recommend to the Congress that an appropriation in the amount of $8,400 be made for payment of the claim.
If the Congress should agree with my recommendation in this matter, it is suggested that the enactment of a statute in substantially the following form will accomplish that purpose:
“Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representative of the United States of America in Congress Assembled, That the Comptroller General of the United States be, and he hereby is, authorized and directed to settle and adjust the claim of Dane D. Morgan on account of the increased costs incurred in the performance of his architectural-engineering contract No. WA-1197, dated February 9, 1942, with the Federal Works Agency by reason of unavoidable delays in the construction and completion of the defense housing project at Burlington, Iowa, and to allow in full and final settlement of the claim the amount of not to exceed $8,400. There is hereby appropriated the sum of $8,400 or so much thereof as may be necessary, for the payment of the said claim."
LINDSAY C. WARREN, Comptroller General of the United States.