I desire further to state that after the district judge ordered the return of the eggs in my possession I immediately took steps to have all the eggs in question returned to the Shelby County Penal Farm from my farm and also those in possession of Mr. Robert B. Cultra of Union City. One hundred and forty-one barrels of these eggs out of the 142 barrels that came into my possession and into Mr. Cultra's possession and one empty barrel (the contents of which had been fed to hogs belonging to me and my partner) were returned by truck on Saturday night, December 9, 1944, and unloaded at the Shelby County Penal Farm Sunday, December 10 thus carrying out, as far as humanly possible. the directions of the court. While these eggs were in my possession, on several different occasions I talked by telephone to Commissioner Ellis of the Shelby County Penal Farm and also to Mr. Bryant, superintendent of the dairy farm, as to how they were feeding the eggs that they received, and, in turn, I told them how the manager of my farm was feeding the eggs in my possession. They stated to me that they were feeding them in a wet mixture, and I told them that they were being fed by my manager like the feeding of tankage. During the 71⁄2 years I have been in Memphis I have never had the pleasure of an introduction to either Commissioner Ellis or Mr. Bryant, and I would not know them if I met them on the street, so far as I know, having never seen them to my knowledge. Everything I did in connection with these eggs was done openly and without any attempt at concealment. Everyone, as I understood it, had treated these eggs as having no value and, because they had no value, difficulty was being found in getting rid of them. Mr. Ellis was entirely willing that I should experiment with some of them, and I was willing to do so. It did not occur to me that I was violating any law, any order of court, doing anything wrong or committing any impropriety. If I had done so or have in any wise embarrassed the court of which I am an officer, I profoundly regret that this has happened. I am proud of my connection with the United States District Court for the Western District of Tennessee, and I have endeavored to serve with the utmost fidelity. I would not for any conceivable consideration embarrass or detract from the dignity of that court which I cherish so highly. For some time I have desired to resign as United States marshal and return to my home in Union City, Tenn., where I am president of the Farmers Exchange Bank. I have only been dissuaded from resigning by those in authority who thought that my services were needed. I have decided, however, that the time has now come when I should submit my resignation, and I shall forward it to the President of the United States when this matter is concluded. CHARLES W. MILES. Subscribed and sworn to before me this 18th day of December 1944. (SEAL] ANNIE L. CRABB, (Press-Scimitar, January 27, 1945) MILES REPORTS PARDON MOVE SAYS JUSTICE DEPARTMENT OFFICIALS HAVE STARTED IT VOLUNTARILY Charles W. Miles, of Union City, former United States marshal, said in Washington today that Department of Justice officials have voluntarily instituted proceedings to obtain for him a Presidential pardon and remission of a $1,000 fine, according to dispatches from Washington. Mr. Miles was quoted as saying he learned of the action after an assistant to the Attorney General personally handed him a letter accepting, with regret, his resignation. If the fine is remitted, Miles will give it to the Red Cross, he was quoted as saying. "It was entirely their own suggestions that the President be asked to issue the pardon and remit the fine," Mr. Miles said. "I have not sought either, although I am interested in having my_record cleared." The fine was imposed by Federal Judge Boyd in Memphis recently for the former marshal's part in diverting county-owned condemned eggs to his own farm. James P. McGranery, Assistant Attorney General, author of the letter accepting his resignation, gave it to him while Mr. Miles was in Washington on other business. It follows: "This will acknowledge your letter, addressed to the Attorney General, tendering your resignation as United States marshal for the Western District of Tennessee. "I regret that you find it necessary to resign from the position in which you have rendered such loyal and faithful service to the department since August 11, 1937. I want you to know, however, that, as you return to private life, you carry with you the best wishes of your many friends here in the Department. "With kind personal regards and best wishes for your continued success.' Miles also said he had refused to accept pay for 60 days' accumulated leave due him at the time of his resignation or to accept a refund of 5-percent retirement deduction from his pay for the last 2 years he served as marshal. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, OFFICE OF THE ASSISTANT TO THE ATTORNEY GENERAL, Hon. EMANUEL CELLER, House of Representatives, Washington, D. C. MY DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: This is in response to your request for the views of the Department of Justice relative to the bill (H. R. 2344) for the relief of Charles W. Miles. The bill would provide for payment of the sum of $1,000 to Charles W. Miles, of Union City, Tenn., which sum represents the amount of a fine paid by him upon conviction of contempt of court, for which offense he subsequently received a full pardon. From the information contained in the files of the Department of Justice, it appears that in 1942 libel for condemnation proceedings were instituted by the Government under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (21 U. S. C. 334 (3)) against a shipment of dried eggs on the ground that they consisted in whole or in part of a decomposed substance and were therefore adulterated under 21 United States Code, 342 (a) (3). A decree of condemnation was thereafter entered. Under 21 United States Code, 334 (d), the owner of a condemned product may obtain it under bond for salvaging purposes, but the owner of the eggs in question determined not to request that they be released to him for salvaging. In order that the eggs might be put to some useful purpose, the decree was amended by the district court so as to provide that the eggs should be donated to the Shelby County Penal Farm, Mullins Station, Tenn., "for use exclusively for animal or stock feed at said penal institution, and under no circumstances to be used or distributed otherwise * * It further appears that after the eggs had been delivered to the penal farm, however, the farm turned over one-half of the eggs (142 barrels) to Mr. Miles. who was the United States marshal, for use on his farm, and the farm of another. A statement of one of the county penal farm commissioners declared that Mr. Miles had asked him if he was interested in the eggs and that he was informed by Mr. Miles that he "could have half of them." After the facts came to light, Mr. Miles had the eggs which he had obtained from the penal farm returned to it. It was the position of Mr. Miles that everything which he had done in the transaction had been done openly; that everyone had agreed that the eggs had no value; that he had not read the court's order, and that the commissioner of the penal farm was willing that Mr. Miles should experiment with the eggs as hog feed. After the facts were called to the attention of the district judge, contempt proceedings were instituted against Mr. Miles and the court imposed a fine of $1,000. Mr. Miles also resigned. On December 30, 1948, the President granted Mr. Miles a full and unconditional pardon, which action had been opposed by both the United States attorney and the district judge. In view of these facts, whether the bill should be enacted presents a question of legislative policy concerning which the Department of Justice desires to make no recommendation. The Director of the Bureau of the Budget has advised this Department that there would be no objection to the submission of this report. Yours sincerely, C. H. DUTTON CO., OF KALAMAZOO, MICH. JUNE 23, 1949.-Committed to the Committee of the Whole House and ordered to be printed Mr. JENNINGS, from the Committee on the Judiciary. submitted the following REPORT (To accompany H. R. 2608! The Committee on the Judiciary, to whom was referred the bill (H. R. 2608) for the relief of C. H. Dutton Co., of Kalamazoo, Mich., 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 $4,200 to the C. H. Dutton Co., of Kalamazoo, Mich. Such sum represents the amount withheld by the United States from sums otherwise due the above company in order to recover an overpayment made by the United States on contracts Nobs-1188 and Nobs-1414 despite the fact that the same amount had heretofore been recovered as excessive profits under the Renegotiation Act. STATEMENT OF FACTS It appears that this amount was withheld as an erroneous overpayment after an increase in the quantity of rudder bearing assemblies ordered from Dutton resulted in a decrease in the unit price but was not noted on the purchase order. Dutton Co. in turn, through oversight. billed and was paid the original higher price which resulted in an Overpayment. Dutton Co., subsequent to the overpayment but prior to the withholding of the $4,200, had been renegotiated by the War Department Price Adjustment Board and contended that by virtue of the recapture by the Government of the excess profit resulting from this renegotiation they had already been charged the amount of the overpayment. Notwithstanding this protest, Dutton Co. was placed on the Navy Department payment hold-up list and the sum of $4,200 was withheld. The War Department Price Adjustment Board informed the Navy Department that the effect of excluding the overpayment from re negotiation sales and profits would have been to reduce Dutton's excessive profits by approximately the amount of the overpayment. In view of this statement the Navy Department requested the General Accounting Office to review and remove its exception to the disbursement of the alleged overpayment. The Comptroller General replied by letter of December 15, 1947, that such improper or illegal payment should be returned to the Government regardless of the fact that Dutton's excessive profit on the transaction had been recovered by the Government through renegotiation. By reason of the finality of the renegotiation settlement agreement and the letter of the Comptroller General, there is no way administratively by which the refund made by Dutton Co. can be adjusted without legislative action, and, in view of the foregoing, the Navy Department has no objection to the enactment of H. R. 2608 Therefore, after careful consideration, by the committee, favorable action on this legislation is recommended. HON. EMANUEL CELLER, NAVY DEPARTMENT, OFFICE OF THE JUDGE ADVOCATE GENERAL, Chairman, Committee on the Judiciary, House of Representatives. DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: Your request for comments on H. R. 2608, for the relief of C. H. Dutton Co., of Kalamazoo, Mich, has been referred to me by the Secretary of the Navy for reply The purpose of the proposed bill is to pay to the C. H. Dutton Co. the sum of $4,200 This amount was withheld after an erroneous overpayment after an increase in the quantity of rudder bearing assemblies ordered from Dutton resulted in a decrease in the unit price but was not noted on the purchase order. Dutton Co. in turn, through oversight, billed and was paid the original higher price which resulted in an overpayment Dutton Co. subsequent to the overpayment but prior to the withholding of the $4,200 had been renegotiated by the War Department Price Adjustment Board and contended that by virtue of the recapture by the Government of the excess profit resulting from this renegotiation they had already been charged the amount of the overpayment. Notwithstanding this protest, Dutton Co. was placed on the Navy Department payment hold-up list and the sum of $4,200 was withheld. The War Department Price Adjustment Board 'nformed the Navy Department that the effect of excluding the overpayment from renegotiation sales and profits would have been to reduce Duttons excessive profit by approximately the amount of the overpayment. In view of this statement the Navy Department requested the Genera Accounting Office to review and remove its exception to the disbursement of the alleged overpayment. The Comptroller General replied by letter of December 15 1947 (B-70434), that such improper or legal payment should be returned to the Government regardless of th fact that Dutton's excessive profit on the transaction had been recovered by the Government through renegotiation. By reason of the finality of the renegotiation settlement agreement and the letter of the Comptroller General (B-70434), there is no way administratively by which the refund made by Dutton Co. can be adjusted without legislative action In view of the foregoing, the Navy Department has no objection to the enactment of H. R. 2608 The Navy Department has been advised by the Bureau of the Budget that there is no objection to the submission of this report to the Congress Respectfully yours. G. L. RUSSELL, Rear Admiral, United States Navy, Gibbs & Cox, Inc., acting as design agents for the Chicago Bridge & Iron Co. and for the Bethlehem-Hingham Shipyard, Inc., to whom has been issued, respectively, Navy Prime Contracts Nobs-1188 and Nobs-1414, on September 24, 1943, issued their purchase order LST/G&C-304 to the C. H. Dutton Co. for production and procurement of component parts and materials related to these prime contracts. On December 14, 1943, Gibbs & Cox, Inc., telegraphed notification to the C. H. Dutton Co. of an increase over the original quantity requirement and requested advice as to any cost reduction resulting from the increased requirement. On December 15, 1943, the C. H. Dutton Co. wired their acceptance of the increased requirement and offered a lowered price to be retroactive over the entire purchase order. Further clarifications of details were made by wire, and finally on January 10, 1944, the C. H. Dutton Co. were advised of the acceptance of the prices submitted and informed that an addendum incorporating the quantity and price changes would be forwarded in due course. These changes were never formalized by the addendum referred to, and the C. H. Dutton Co., acting in accordance with previous instructions regarding billing, invoiced and received payment for all shipments at the original existing contract prices. The entire requirement of the purchase order was completed and shipped prior to July 31, 1944, which date was the close of the fiscal year of the C. H. Dutton Co., who concede that by that date a total overpayment of $21,480 had been made on the completed purchase order. Subsequently, on March 22, 1945, a renegotiation agreement for the fiscal year ended July 31, 1944, was executed by the C. H. Dutton Co. with the Chicago office of the Price Adjustment Branch, War Department, office of division engineer, Great Lakes Division. It is contended that the overpayment arising in connection with the completion of the discussed purchase order was included in the renegotiable business for that year, and that the elimination of such profits subject to the Renegotiation Act constituted an effective repayment by the C. H. Dutton Co. of the sum of $21,480 set forth above. In support of this contention a copy of a letter from the Price Adjustment Branch, dated April 9, 1946, is submitted, duly marked "Exhibit A." The first request for direct repayment of the purchase order overcharges was not made until March 7, 1946, at which time Gibbs & Cox, Inc., made such demand, which was followed shortly thereafter by a similar demand from Chicago Bridge & Iron Co. The C. H. Dutton Co. replied to these demands that recovery of such excess payments had been effected in the over-all renegotiation for the year in which the purchase order had been completed, as affirmed by the Price Adjustment Branch in their letter of April 9, 1946 (exhibit A). That letter also states that the finality of the written agreement under the Renegotiation Act precludes any possibility of modifying the findings to permit a refund to be made to the C. H. Dutton Co. for the purpose of satisfying the refund demanded by Gibbs & Cox, Inc., or Chicago Bridge & Iron Co. The matter remained dormant until 1948 at which time the C. H. Dutton Co. received two demand letters from the Director of the Cost Inspection Service, Navy Department, Bureau of Supplies and Accounts, the second of which is dated March 17, 1948, and advised that in the absence of a voluntary payment of the sum of $4,200 the name of the C. H. Dutton Co. would be placed on the Navy payment hold-up list. Payment was not made, and the threatened action was followed by the Navy Department with the subsequent result that payment of this demand was effected on August 27, 1948, by withholding the sum of $4,200 from the C. H. Dutton Co. from payment of their then current invoice to the War Department, Detroit Ordnance District, as evidenced by the attached copy of the public voucher, marked "Exhibit B," which clearly indicates the deduction. A letter dated December 15, 1947, from the Comptroller General of the United States to the Secretary of the Navy substantially concedes that a refund had been effected through the execution of the renegotiation agreement. A copy thereof is attached and duly marked "Exhibit C." Letters from the Office of the General Counsel, Department of the Navy, and from the Acting Secretary of the Navy, dated May 1 and May 10, 1948, copies of which are also attached and labeled "Exhibits D and E," respectively, also support the fact that the Government had been reimbursed through the renegotiation agreement. Consequently, despite these admission by the several Government agencies involved that the Government had been reimbursed, the C. H. Dutton Co. was forced to relinquish the sum of $4,200 once again by the withholding of that sum from payment of its just invoice to the War Department, Detroit Ordnance |