This claimant has no remedy under the Federal Tort Claims Act of August 2, 1946 (60 Stat. 842; 28 U. S. C. 921), since the accident in which he was injured occurred prior to January 1, 1945.

The Bureau of the Budget has advised that there is no objection to the submission of this report.

Sincerely yours,

STATE OF CALIFORNIA,

County of Alameda, ss.

William E. Marsh, M. D., 250 Bancroft Way, Berkeley, Calif., being first duly sworn, deposes and says;

That he is a practicing physician and surgeon, licensed in the State of California, and has been such since 1938.

That he was the attending physician for Arthur Earl Troiel, Jr., from February 24, 1945, until further medical attention and treatment became unnecessary on February 15, 1946. Arthur Earl Troiel, Jr., hereinafter referred to as the patient, was in the Berkeley General Hospital, Berkeley, Calif., as a result of injuries received on December 9, 1944. At the time your affiant was first called into consultation, the patient was suffering from extensive second- and third-degree burns, involving the chest, anterior and posterior, from the waist to the shoulder; secondand third-degree burns of the right forearm and hand, and severe third-degree burns of the left axilla. The patient was moved on February 25, 1915, to the Alta Bates Hospital, Berkeley, Calif., where he remained until March 29, 1945. Treatment of the patient continued as an office case until September 18, 1945, when the patient was rehospitalized for an operation on his right forearm. He remained in the hospital for 2 days and was thereafter treated as an office case until February 15, 1946. During the course of the treatment of the patient, your affiant made numerous skin grafts on the patient and removed the scar where the burns had closed in on the right forearm, as aforesaid.

As a result of his injuries, the patient has extensive cicatrizations of his entire upper body, right forearm, and left axilla. The patient also suffers limitation of movement of the extension of the left arm. Due to the extensive cicatrizations and the fact that this scar tissue tends to contract with time, it is reasonably certain that the motion of the left arm may be more limited in the future, and that further surgery may be necessary at a later date, possibly several years from now The patient is scarred and disfigured on the upper body, and on the legs, from which tissue was removed for the grafts and such scarring and disfigurement will remain for the rest of his life. Because of the extensive extent of the disfigurement, neither plastic surgery nor the action of time will every remove the scars. In my entire practice of the medicine, I have never seen a person so badly burned and still survive.

My fee for medical and surgical services is in the amount of $386.50, of which $191 has now been paid and there is a balance owing of $195,50. The parents of the patient have made satisfactory arrangements with me to pay off this balance.

WILLIAM E. Marsh, M. D.

Subscribed and sworn to before me this 1st day of July 1946, at Berkeley, Calif. M. W. STREHT, Notary Public in and for said county and State.

My commission expires February 11, 1947.

JAMES R. FRAZER

JUNE 14, 1949.-Committed to the Committee of the Whole House and ordered to be printed

Mr. LANE, from the Committee on the Judiciary. submitted the

following

REPORT

(To accompany H. R. 2530]

The Committee on the Judiciary, to whom was referred the bill (H. R. 2530) for the relief of James R. Frazer, having considered the same, report favorably thereon without amendment and recommend that the bill do pass.

The purpose of the proposed legislation is to pay the sum of $236.11 to James R. Frazer, of Poseyville, Ind. Payment of such sum shall be in full settlement of all claims of the said James R. Frazer against the United States for reimbursement of charges for the transportation of his household effects from University City, Mo., to Huron, Ind.. on or about April 4, 1946. Such charges were incurred when the said James R. Frazer, while employed by the Rural Electrification Administration, was transferred from St. Louis, Mo., to Washington, D. C., but caused his household effects to be shipped to Huron, Ind., instead of to Washington, D. C., because he was about to retire from Government service.

STATEMENT OF FACTS

It appears that on December 26, 1945, Mr. Frazer received a permanent change of official headquarters from St. Louis, Mo., to Washington, D. C., and by authorization No. WD-528-A of the same date, shipment of his household goods was authorized in connection with the said transfer. It appears that he completed the travel to his new duty station on January 31, 1946, and that he remained in the service until May 31, 1946. Under date of April 4, 1946, Government bill of lading No. A-1592940 was issued covering the transportation of Mr. Frazer's household effects from University City, Mo., to Washington, D. C., his new official station. However, it seems that the effects actually were shipped on April 30, 1946, to Huron, Ind., at

his request and for his personal convenience, at a cost of $292.11. The administrative office made settlement with the carrier and deducted the entire sum so paid from the amount due Mr. Frazer on pay roll voucher No. 1091778. Subsequently, he filed a claim in the General Accounting Office for $168.75 (later amended to $235.49) alleging that sum to be the Government's share of the expenses involved ($292.11). This claim was disallowed upon the ground that the household goods were shipped for Mr. Frazer's personal convenience to a point other than his official station.

On January 9, 1947, Mr. Frazer requested review of the action taken by General Accounting Office, and it was disallowed.

It would appear that if Mr. Frazer's household effects had been shipped to Washington, in accordance with the travel order, it would have cost the Government about three times what it did to have them stopped at an intermediate point and it would not have been for the convenience of the Government because after his retirement the Government could not possibly gain anything by having him in Washington. By removing his household goods all the way to Washington the Government would have spent more money and then to get the goods back to southern Indiana would have cost him about twice what it did the Government to transport them to southern Indiana, in addition to which the goods in question would have suffered a lot of additional wear and tear by the additional trip.

I would appear also that in justice and equity Mr. Frazer is entitled to the amount as set forth in this bill in view of the fact that the Government saved money by this shipment being stopped at an intermediate point; and it would further appear that not to pay Mr. Frazer would be penalizing him for shortening the haul on account of his imminent retirement, to which (under the law) he was entitled and which retirement was known to the officials who issued Mr. Frazer's travel order. Mr. Frazer states that it was also known to his superiors in the Rural Electrification Administration that his retirement would become effective shortly after his arrival in Washington; his household goods would have had to be shipped to southern Indiana from Washington, thereby costing the Government additional expense

Therefore, your committee is of the opinion that the bill is meritorious and recommends favorable consideration to the legislation.

Hon. EARL C. MICHENER,

Chairman, Committee on the Judiciary,

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE,
Washington, D. C., June 8, 1948.

House of Representatives.

DEAR MR. MICHENER: This is in reply to your request of January 9, 1948, on H. R. 3985, a bill for the relief of James R Frazer The bill authorizes and directs the Secretary of the Treasury to pay Mr Frazer the sum of $236.11 for reimbursement of charges for the transportation of his household effects from University City, Mo., to Huron. Ind., on or about April 4, 1946.

Mr. Frazer's claim arises as an incident to the return of the Rura. Electrification Administration from St. Louis, Mo., to Washington, D. C. The authority pursuant to which arrangements were made for the return of employees and their household effects to Washington is found in the act of October 10, 1940. Public Law 839. Seventy-sixth Congress and Executive Order No. 8588 You will note that these authorities impose a limit of 5,000 pounds with respect to household effects to be moved at Government expense This limit was later increased to

7,000 pounds for employees of agencies being recentralized, pursuant to the act of May 18, 1946, Public Law 384, Seventy-ninth Congress and Executive Order 9739.

The facts out of which Mr. Frazer's claim arises are set forth in detail in a settlement certificate dated December 13, 1946, from the Comptroller General of the United States addressed to Mr. Frazer, copy of which is attached. You will note that the Comptroller General certifies that "no balance is found due * * from the United States."

Under date of July 8, 1946 Mr. Frazer filed with the Comprtoller General a claim for reimbursement to him in the amount of $168.75 representing the cost of moving 5,000 pounds of household effects from University City, Mo., to Huron, Ind., at the rate of 3.373 cents per pound. Under date of September 23, 1946, the Claims Division of the General Accounting Office transmitted to the Rural Electrification Administration a request for an administrative report showing whether any amount was due to claimant. Under date of October 10, 1946, the Rural Electrification Administration submitted such a report. The settlement certificate of the Comptroller General, ruling on the claim, is referred to above. There are attached copies of the above-nemtioned communications or excerpts therefrom which are material to the claim.

It is clear from these documents that the certifying officer of the Rural Electrification Administration could not have certified Mr. Frazer's claim or failed to take steps to deduct the cost of removal of his household effects from sums owed him by the Government, without submitting himself to personal responsibility therefor.

There appears to be a discrepancy between the amount originally presented in Mr. Frazer's claim to the Comptroller General dated July 8, 1946, amounting to $168.75 and the amount provided for in H. R. 3985. This is explained by the raising of the weight limit to 7,000 pounds and it would seem that the correct amount of the claim would be $236.11.

The Comptroller General's decision that he was not entitled to reimbursement appears to be based on a determination that Mr. Frazer had failed to prove that the establishment of his home at and the arrangement for shipment of his household effects to an intermediate point other than Washington, D. C., were solely because of war conditions.

When settlement was made with Mr. Frazer on June 26, 1946, no authority was found under applicable law and regulations for reimbursement of the cost of moing his household goods; and no facts have been subsequently developed which would indicate that the Department's original determination was in error. The Bureau of the Budget advises that it has no objection to the submission of this report.

Sincerely,

CHARLES F. BRANNAN, Secretary.

POSEYVILLE, IND., May 26, 1949.

Hon. WINFIELD K. DENTON,

House of Representatives, Washington, D. C.

DEAR MR. DENTON: Referring further to your letter of May 17 and supplementing mine of May 21:

The letter dated June 8, 1948, signed by Charles F. Brannon, Secretary of Agriculture, explains the entire transaction with considerable accuracy, but misses the main point.

My principle contention is that the whole situation arose solely because of war conditions plus a considerable amount of personal animous which existed against me on the part of the personnel officer of the Rural Electrification Administration, John W. Asher, Jr. and one Gordan B. Gilmore, who was head of the Internal Accounting and Travel Section of the Management Division of which I was Chief, of the Rural Electrification Administration.

Mr. Asher simply developed a dislike for me largely I believe because I insisted on running my own division.

Mr. Gilmore, who passed on my final account was by that fact given a beautiful opportunity to annoy me by disallowing my account as covered by the aboveentitled bill.

Mr. Gilmore and I had a misunderstanding which began about the year 1943 as to whether he or I would run the Management Division of which I was the Chief. I finally convinced him that he was my subordinate and that I was

supposed to run the Management Division and intended to do so. Altogether he was so unreliable that I was obliged to take some of the functions of his section away from him, thereby depriving him of the opportunity of a promotion which he had long been striving for.

That covers the personal angle.

Before submitting my final account I went into the question of this freight very thoroughly with William R. Quigley, Assistant Chief of the Office of Budget and Finance of the Department of Agriculture, who expressed the opinion that I was entitled to an allowance for the freight, even though it were stopped at an intermediate point.

In arguing this matter out with the Comptroller General I cited one of his own decisions where a Government employee ordered from Washington to New York had his goods stopped at Philadelphia. I do not recall that that decision was passed on the idea that the employee was obliged to live in Philadelphia on account of war conditions and commute to New York. Certainly, commuting from Philadelphia to New York would have been an inconvenient and expensive process.

At any rate, I went into all of the angles very thoroughly with Mr. Quigley and made up my account accordingly.

Prior to disallowing my freight claim Mr. Gilmore took the trouble to obtain a predetermination of the question by presenting the case in my absence and without my knowledge, to Herbert Marshall of the Office of Budget and Finance of the Department of Agriculture and to Mr. Keller of the Audit Division of the General Accounting Office. After obtaining such predeterminations he disallowed the freight claim in question, feeling quite certain that he could make such disallowance stick.

There is no question but that the General Accounting Office decided against me. Under date of December 13, 1946, Matthew J. Nevins for the Comptroller General wrote me disallowing the claim because it had not been made to appear that I established my home at an intermediate point between St. Louis and Washington "solely because of present war conditions."

I then asked for reconsideration and under date of April 22, 1947, received letter from Lindsey C. Warren, Comptroller General, signed by him, but doubtless prepared for his signature by someone else, again disallowing the claim because it had not been made to appear that I established my home at an inter mediate point "solely because of war conditions."

If the determination of the General Accounting Office is to control the action of the Congress with regard to the bill mentioned at the head of this letter, then there is no point in pressing for the enactment of said bill. The bill is titled "A bill for the relief of James R. Frazer." The purpose of the bill is to relieve me of an unjust determination by the General Accounting Office and it is my hope that the committee to which the bill has been referred will consider it from the angle of equity rather than follow the narrow viewpoint expressed by the General Accounting Office.

To state the whole proposition as succintly as I know how, permit me to make the following points:

1. When war was declared I was in the employ of the Rural Electrification Administration and was comfortably situated in a country place I had purchased 20 miles out in Montgomery County, Md.

2. Without consulting me the Rural Electrification Administration was ordered transferred to St. Louis to make room for a war agency and I had no option other than to remove to St. Louis. The move was due entirely to the war.

3. I did not seek transfer from Washington to St. Louis, but proceeded to remove to that city, due entirely to the war.

4. On the move to St. Louis I was entitled to 5,000 pounds of freight. I had considerably more than that and after the removal I was billed something over $150 for excess freight which I paid. This was an expense due entirely to the

war.

5. Due to the move of St. Louis I was obliged to sacrifice and did sacrifice my property in Maryland, which sacrifice was due entirely to the war.

6. After remaining about 4 years in St. Louis we were ordered back to Washington, but prior to the removal and prior to the issuance of the travel order covering my household goods I had indicated my desire to retire and actually had such retirement under way. Nevertheless, the travel order was issued, although it was known to my superiors in REA that my retirement would become effective shortly after our arrival in Washington. Therefore, it could not be argued with any degree of reason that my removal to Washington was for the