Page images
PDF
EPUB

there until December 6, 1958, when she returned to London, on her way to the United States.

Your letter of February 9, 1959, in which you presented your claim, referred to several letters which you forwarded with your claim. These letters indicated that you were attached to the office of the U.S. Naval Attaché, Baghdad, Iraq, and that you were married to an Iraqi citizen on July 18, 1958. In office memorandum from the U.S. Naval Attaché to the American Embassy, Baghdad, dated October 22, 1958, it is stated that you were advised by the Naval Attaché that although your wife was apparently ineligible for emergency cost-ofliving allowance, she should be evacuated from Iraq as soon as an exit visa was obtainable. After obtaining the visa your wife departed Baghdad September 11, 1958, as stated above. By Operations Memorandum dated October 24, 1958, the Office of the Naval Attaché requested the State Department through the American Embassy at Baghdad for a decision as to whether your evacuation travel order could be amended to include your dependent, and by Operations Memorandum dated December 5, 1958, it was stated that your dependent should have been issued an evacuation travel order to a safe haven in Italy on the same basis as other dependents of attaché personnel. in your letter you state that after your marriage you requested the evacuation of your wife, but were advised that since she was not an American citizen she was not eligible. However, upon receipt of a Visa to the United States, your wife left for Rome. Because of the high cost of living at Rome, she obtained a British visa and traveled to England. You stated further that you had planned to leave in midOctober, but were notified you had to remain in Baghdad until December. Accordingly, you claimed emergency cost-of-living allowance from September 11 through December 7, 1958, the day you met your wife in London, England, en route to the United States.

Paragraph 4306, Change 73 of the Joint Travel Regulations, which is stated to be effective July 16, 1958, provided for the payment of an emergency cost-of-living allowance to a member on duty at an overseas station when his dependents were ordered to be evacuated from the vicinity of his duty station to another overseas area. This allowance was to be prescribed by special determination of the Secretary of the service concerned and the Chairman of the Per Diem Travel and Transportation Allowance Committee on the basis of a report of actual costs of quarters and subsistence being experienced by dependents in the area to which evacuated. Such information was to be ascertained and furnished to the Committee by the senior commander of that area, or any other competent authority, as soon as possible after the arrival there of the dependents. The paragraph further provided that these allowances were payable from the day of the

758-984 O-65-6

dependents' arrival in the designated safe haven area and that, pending the prescribing of an emergency cost-of-living allowance, and for a period of not to exceed 30 days the allowance would be based on the daily travel per diem rate prescribed in Table 3, Appendix B of the regulations for the place designated as the place where the dependents should temporarily reside.

Evacuation orders EM-Navy-7, dated July 14, 1958, authorizing your evacuation and shipment of your effects from Baghdad, Iraq, to a safe haven in Rome, Italy, indicated that at that time you had no family authorized to travel to the safe haven. Therefore, on July 18, 1958, the date you were married, there was no authorization for the evacuation of your dependent wife. However, inasmuch as the Office Memorandum from the Naval Attaché dated October 22, 1958, states that you were verbally advised by the Naval Attaché that your wife should be evacuated as soon as an exit visa was obtainable, the amendment dated January 28, 1959, to travel authorization EM-Navy-7, will be considered as written confirmation of verbal orders by the Naval Attaché authorizing your wife's evacuation from Baghdad, given prior to her travel to Rome on September 11, 1958. Since her itinerary shows she stayed in Rome from September 11 to 16, 1958, you are entitled to the emergency cost-of-living allowance for that period at the prescribed rate for Rome. However, the orders of July 14, 1958, as well as the amendment dated January 28, 1959, both limited travel of the evacuees to a safe haven in Rome, Italy, only. The regulations make no provision for payment of the allowance when, for personal reasons, the evacuee departs from the designated safe haven area. Therefore, there is no authority for the payment of emergency cost-of-living allowance for your wife after her departure from Rome. Accordingly, your entitlement to emergency cost-ofliving allowance terminated on September 16, 1958.

A settlement will issue on the basis stated above after ascertaining the proper rate.

[B-151378]

Property-Private-Citizens Dying Abroad-Disposition

A proposed disposition of the unidentified effects (United States and foreign currencies) of a group of American citizens who died in an airplane accident overseas to two charitable organizations because the next of kin were unable to agree on the disposition of the effects may not be approved under 22 U.S.C. 1175 which specifies that, if a representative of the State Department cannot dispose of the effects within 1 year from the date of death according to the law of the decedent's domicile, he is required to transfer the effects to the General Accounting Office for the Comptroller General to hold the property in trust for the legal claimants and, if the parties in interest do not resolve their differences after 6 years the property is required to be turned over to the State of the last domicile of the deceased citizens.

To the Secretary of State, July 12, 1963:

This is in response to a letter dated April 24, 1963, with enclosures, from the Honorable William J. Crockett, Assistant Secretary for Administration, Department of State. The letter of the Assistant Secretary submitted for our consideration a proposed disposition of "unidentified effects", United States and foreign currencies valued at $631.47, which had been turned over to the American Embassy at Paris by the French authorities. The monies were released to the American Embassy as belonging to, although individual ownership could not be established, the one hundred and twenty passengers who perished in an airplance crash near Paris on June 3, 1962. The victims were Americans, mainly from Atlanta, Georgia.

Among the enclosures with the letter of the Assistant Secretary is a copy of a letter dated October 8, 1962, from the Mayor of Atlanta to the American Consul General at Paris. It appears the Mayor, pursuant to correspondence with the Consul General, contacted the next of kin of the crash victims as to the disposition of the "unidentified effects." All but four agreed to turning the monies over to the Art Association Memorial Fund. Of the four expressing divergent views, three wished the recipient to be the Childrens Medical Research Memorial, the fourth preferred putting the monies into the United States Treasury. The Art Association Memorial Fund and the Childrens Medical Research Memorial are understood to be charitable organizations in the city of Atlanta.

Under the circumstances, and apparently as a practical solution to the dilemma presented by monies whose individual ownership cannot be ascertained, the Embassy at Paris "proposes that the unidentified money, $631.47, be divided into two parts, $50 to be donated to the Childrens Medical Research Memorial, and the remainder, $581.47, to be given to the Art Association Memorial Fund, which are the two charities suggested as beneficiaries."

Essentially the letter of the Assistant Secretary presents the question of whether the Embassy's proposal is authorized, and, if not what conditions would have to be met before it could be authorized.

Section 1175, Title 22 of the United States Code, imposes upon a consular officer or, in his absence, a diplomatic officer the duty, under such procedural regulations as the Secretary of State may prescribe, "To take possession and to dispose of the personal estate left by any citizen of the United States *** who shall die*** within his jurisdiction * * *” ***." The consular officer "shall act as the provisional conservator of the personal property within his jurisdiction of a deceased citizen of the United States ***. He shall render assistance in guarding, collecting, and transmitting the property to the United

States to be disposed of according to the law of the decedent's domicile." If after expiration of 1 year from the date of death, the consular officer cannot make proper disposition of the property, he is required under the section, as implemented by the regulations of the Secretary of State (7 Foreign Affairs Manual 446), to transmit the personal estate to the General Accounting Office, "there to be held in trust for the legal claimant." The section further provides that "The Comptroller General of the United States *** shall act as conservator of such parts of these estates as may be received by the General Accounting Office ***"; and, "If no claim to the effects * * shall have been received from a legal claimant of the deceased within six years from the date of the receipt of the effects by the General Accounting Office, the funds so deposited, with any remaining unsold effects *** shall be transmitted by that office to the proper officer of the State or Territory of the last domicile in the United States of the deceased citizen ***"

Notwithstanding the practical and ethical considerations giving rise to the Embassy's proposed distribution, we cannot view the contemplated action as a proper extension of the duties and responsibilities imposed by section 1175, both upon the Foreign Service and our Office. In the absence of unanimous concurrence by the various potential legal claimants, effectuation of the proposed distribution would not be authorized. Rather, under the section and the applicable regulations, the monies involved should now be transmitted to our Office, "to be held in trust for the legal claimant," and ultimately distributed, if the parties in interest do not resolve their differences, to the State "of the last domicile in the United States of the deceased citizen", apparently herein the State of Georgia.

[B-148465, B-148615]

Transportation-Routes-Mis routed-Liability for Excess General Rule

Charges

In the transportation of unrouted Government shipments by motor carrier, the initial carrier has the duty of forwarding the shipment over lines of connecting carriers via the route which produces the lowest total charge to the Government and the failure of a carrier to forward a shipment over the lowest applicable rate route makes it guilty of misrouting and liable for the excess transportation charges.

Transportation-Routes-Misrouted-Liability for Excess Charges-Tariff Shipments

In the transportation of Government shipments which are subject to rates and routes provided in interstate tariffs regularly published and filed with the Interstate Commerce Commission, all carriers participating in the movement are charged with knowledge of the legally published tariff rates or charges.

Transportation-Routes-Mis routed-Liability for Excess Charges Tariff Shipments

A destination motor carrier that had a Government bill of lading indicating that an unrouted shipment was misrouted and that the shipper was entitled to the lowest available charge under a regularly published tariff when it presented its bill for payment is not only chargeable with knowledge of the proper rate under the tariff but is the carrier that had the opportunity of charging the carrier that misrouted the shipment with the excess charges and of assessing any other connecting carriers its proper proportion of the actual route-ofmovement charges thereby eliminating any circuity of action in collecting the excess charges and, therefore, recovery of the excess transportation charges from the destination carrier is proper.

Transportation-Routes-Misrouted-Liability for
Charges Special Rate Shipments

Excess

An initial motor carrier that was tendered unrouted Government shipments subject to a special rate quotation authorized under section 22 of the Interstate Commerce Act, 49 U.S.C. 22(1), and forwarded the shipments over lines of connecting carriers other than carriers participating in the special rate quotation is, in the absence of any evidence that the destination carrier had knowledge of the misrouting, the carrier responsible for the misrouting and, therefore, the carrier liable for the excess transportation charges.

To the Western Truck Lines, Ltd., July 15, 1963:

In your letter of February 5, 1963, you request review of our disallowance of your claims, per bill Nos. G-02475, G-02259, G-02845, and G-02935. These claims were disallowed by our Office because they cover excess freight charges accruing as a result of misrouting. See, in this connection, the decision of the United States Supreme Court in Hewitt-Robins, Inc. v. Eastern Freight-Ways, Inc., 371 U.S. 84, decided November 19, 1962, holding that a shipper by motor carrier has a right to recover the difference in rate charges resulting from improper routing by the carrier of a shipment over other than the least expensive available route. In our prior recovery of the excess charges paid on the shipments covered by bill Nos. G-02845 and G-02935, your company was held liable as origin carrier; whereas, in our recovery in the other two instances you were held liable as destination carrier. Therefore, in your request for review you state—

We are somewhat at a loss to understand the principles outlined by the General Accounting Office, since we note that, while all four claims are based on mis-routing, two have been presented to ourselves as the origin carrier and two have been presented to us as the destination carrier. Perhaps your office can explain this inconsistency to us, both with respect these specific claims and any future ones that we might receive; when such claims are based on mis-routing.

The claim on your bill No. G-02475 concerns a shipment under Government bill of lading No. N-34065512, dated August 19, 1959, which was tendered unrouted to Brown Express at origin and received from your company by the consignee at destination. For the service performed on this shipment your company originally claimed and was paid charges of $546.88, based on the less-than-truckload rates

« PreviousContinue »