Page images
PDF
EPUB

LACEY C. ZAPF

JULY 7, 1949.-Committed to the Committee of the Whole House and ordered

to be printed

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

following

REPORT

(To accompany S. 14291

The Committee on the Judiciary, to whom was referred the bill (S. 1429) for the relief of Lacey C. Zapf, having considered the same, reports favorably thereon without amendment and recommends that the bill do pass.

The purpose of the proposed legislation is to pay to Lacey C. Zapf the sum of $486.56 to reimburse him for the expense incident to the return of his dependent daughter from Sydney, Australia, to Washington, D. C., in February 1940.

The bill is in essence the same as H. R. 6457 which was introduced in the Seventy-seventh Congress, second session.

STATEMENT

Mr. Zapf was a member of the Foreign Commerce Service, which was consolidated with the Foreign Service, Department of State, on July 1, 1939, under the provisions of Reorganization Plan No. 2. He arrived in Sydney, Australia, on October 31, 1938, having traveled under the provisions of the Department of Commerce regulations governing the transportation of families and effects. The regulations of the Department of Commerce, it appears, allowed pay for the travel of dependent children over the age of 21 years. However, when Mr. Zapf was transferred under the reorganization plan to the Department of State he became subject to the regulations of the Department of State, which provided that travel pay could not be allowed for dependent children over the age of 21.

It appears from the affidavit filed by the claimant that the daughter, Virs. Betty Zapf Prudden, was totally dependent upon him for support.

The committee file discloses that claimant may reasonably have expected that his family and dependents would be transported back to the place of permanent residence at Government expense under the circumstances present in this case. The record indicates that Department of Commerce regulations provided that dependents 21 years of age or over could be transported at Government expense. It appears that the decision as to whether the Government would bear the expense of transporting a dependent of a Department of Commerce official or employee, when that official or employee was not under travel orders, under the circumstances in this case, was one which would be arrived at by administrative determination. Mr. Zapf states that Commerce Department officials stated that the travel here involved would have been paid for by the Government had he remained subject to regulations of the Foreign Commerce Service. The claimant, without an opportunity to anticipate, was made subject to the regulations of the Department of State on July 1, 1939. Under State Department regulations, dependents in the daughter's classification could not be returned to the States at Government expense.

The committee believe that this situation is analogous to that of a member of the armed forces who is sent abroad for duty and should be considered in the same light. The committee further believe that it is not the policy of the United States Government to send its agents and servants to serve their Government in foreign lands and then to require them to return their dependents to this country at their own expense. This consideration is particularly applicable when this necessity is brought about by a policy change over which the aggrieved servant has no control and which he, in the ordinary course of events, certainly could not have anticipated.

It cannot be said that it was a moving purpose of such reorganization of our Foreign Service to impose these burdens upon our servants so situated.

The correspondence available to the committee indicates that the state of the daughter's health dictated prompt action. Mr. Zapf requested travel for her at Government expense, but was informed that State Department regulations would not authorize it. Under the circumstances. he could not be expected to delay her return until this matter was administratively clarified.

It is quite true, that the daughter Mrs. Prudden, was not a dependent under State Department regulations, but the point is she was classified a dependent under the regulations of the Commerce Department, and but for the reorganization plan, referred to above, would have been furnished transportation at Government expense to Washington, D. C.

The Department of State, in a letter dated February 9, 1942, which is made a part of this report by reference, does not object to the passage of this legislation if the Congress in its discretion decides that relief should be granted.

In view of the above considerations the committee recommended the bill be favorably considered.

Pertinent correspondence and claimant's itemized affidavit appear in House Report No. 1929, Seventy-seventh Congress, and need not be reprinted here.

DEPARTMENT OF State,

Washington February 9, 1942. The Honorable Dan R. McGEHEE, Chairman, Committee on Claims, House of Representatives,

Washington, D. C. MY DEAR MR. McGEHEE: I have received your letter of January 28, 1942, concerning a bill, H. R. 6457, introduced by you for the purpose of obtaining reimbursement to Mr. Lacey C. Zapf, American Foreign Service officer, assigned as American consul at Sydney, Australia. of an expenditure of $186.56 incident to the return of his dependent daughter, Mrs. Betty Zapf Prudden, from Sydney, Australia, to Washington, D. C., in February 1940.

The American consul general at Sydney wrote the Department in a despatch of December 8, 1939, a copy of which is enclosed, asking whether the expenses of Mrs. Prudden in returning to the United States could be authorized from Government funds. The Department telegraphed under date of January 11, 1940. expressing regret that it was impossible to issue such authorization under the rezulations.

The regulations in force at that time read as follows:

"ACCOUNTS SUPPLEMENT E OF THE FOREIGN SERVICE REGULATIONS-TRAVEL

REGULATIONS OF THE DEPARTMENT OF STATE, APRIL 1933

“Note 34. Definition of family'.—Those entitled to reimbursement for expense of transportation and subsistence and transportation of effects under these notes and the Standardized Government Travel Regulations include officers and employees of the Foreign Service. The family, whose expenses of transportation and per diem may be charged against the Government, may include a wife and dependent children (including stepchildren) and no others. The word 'dependent' means children who have not reached the age of 21 and who are not accustomed to provide for their own support; but any dependent child arriving at the age of 21 between the date of departure from the old post and arrival at the new post shall be considered as coming within the regulations for the whole journey.'

Furthermore, no travel orders had been issued to Mr. Zapf at the time Mrs. Prudden traveled to the United States, consequently travel status was not contemplated for him and the travel of Mrs. Prudden was not performed subsequent to the date of any travel orders issued to Mr. Zapf. The regulation in this respect reads as follows:

"Note 35. Time limitations in cases of transsers.—The expenses of the family of an officer or employee entitled to transportation at Government expense will be allowed under the limitations imposed by these notes and the Standardized Government Travel Regulations and existing laws, whether they accompany, or follow, or precede him, provided their departure is subsequent to the date of his travel order *

Mr. Zapf was a member of the Foreign Commerce Service, which was consolidated with the Foreign Service of the Department of State, July 1, 1939, under the provisions of Reorganization Plan No. II.

He arrived at Sydney, Australia, October 31, 1938, having traveled under the provisions of the Department of Commerce regulations governing the transportation of families and effects. Notes 3 and 5 of those regulations read as follows:

3. Definition of 'family'.- Wherever the word 'family' is used in these regulations, it shall be understood to include wife, and minor or dependent children of an officer or employee. It shall also include the father and mother, or either, of the officer or employee, if actually dependent upon the officer or employee for their chief support and living continuously with him as a part of his household. It shall also include the transportation of stepchildren or foster children, if legally adopted by the officer or employee and dependent upon the officer or employee.

“5. When transportation will be allowed. ---An officer or employee will be entitled to reimbursement for the amounts actually and necessarily expended by him for the transportation of his family and effects, within the limits of appropriations and rulings of the Comptroller General, together with provisions in section V, "Transportation of Effects,' irrespective of whether the family precede, accompany, or follow the officer or employee to the place designated in the order authorizing the transportation of the family or effects, but subsequent to the date of travel order *

Attention is invited to the fact that travel performed under the regulations of the Department of Commerce and the Department of State must be subsequent to the date of the travel order.

Since, as pointed out above, Mrs. Prudden in returning to the United States traveled at a time when no travel orders had been issued to Mr. Zapf and was over the age limit prescribed by the regulations, payment of the transportation expenses involved could not properly be authorized from funds under the control of the Department of State. However, since Mr. Zapf traveled to his post under regulations of the Department of Commerce, which provided transportation for his daughter, and under which but for the consolidation of the Foreign Commerce Service with that of the Department of State, her return transportation might have been provided, the contemplatod legislation is in the nature of relief in equity wholly in the diszretion of the Congress, to which I have no reason to object. Sincerely yours.

CORDELL HULL.

No. 622. THE FOREIGN SERVICE OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

AMERICAN CONSULATE GENERAL,

Sydney, Australia, December 8, 1939. Subject: Travel expenses of a dependent in the family of Lacey C. Zapf, formerly

of the Foreign Commerce Service. The honorable the SECRETARY OF STATE,

Washington.

Sir: I have the honor to invite the Department's attention to a situation which recently has arisen and which affects an officer formerly a member of the Foreign Commerce Service, but since July 1 a Foreign Service officer, namely, Trade Commissioner Lacey C. Zapf, and to request the Department's consideration of his case.

Mr. Zapf arrived in Sydney on October 31, 1938. He was assigned here as American trade commissioner (reference Department's instruction to this office of August 6, 1938, file No. 102.8102/ Zapf. Lacey C.). Mr. Zapf was accompanied by his wife and dependent daughter. The latter, Mrs. Betty Prudden, although at that time over 21 years of age, was authorized under the regulations of the Department of Commerce to travel at Government expense. I am told by Mr. Zapf that it was his understanding at that time that on the return of himself and his family (which consisted of himself, his wife, and Mrs. Prudden) to the United States, travel would also be at Government expense. He tells me there was nothing under the regulations of the Department of Commerce that caused him to think otherwise.

Since her arrival in Australia, Mr. Zapf tells me, the health of Mrs. Prudden has shown slow decline, because of which he is now very anxious to send his daughter back to the United States. This, it seems, would have been possible at Government expense and in accordance with the regulations of the Department of Commerce, even should she go alone and no travel orders had been issued for the purpose.

This, he tells me, would have been the situation had he continued to be an officer in the Foreign Commerce Service.

I have explained to Mr. Zapf, and I think he realizes, that travel of this kind at Government expense could not be authorized under the Department's regulations, Accounts Supplement E, Foreign Service Regulations, which now apply to him, he being a Foreign Service officer and as such subject to the Department of State regulations.

Ir. Zapf has told me, however, that it is imperative that Mrs. Prudden return with as little delay as possible, to the United States and the decision has been made, after careful thought and consultation with a physician, that she go. He is, of course, prepared to pay her travel himself and expects to do so, in the event the Department finds it not possible to arrange payment through the transportation and allowances for quarters of the Forei in Commerce Service. I have informed him of my lack of information as to whether or not this may be possible, but I am taking it up with the Department and hope that favorable consideration may be given to his request, if possible.

It would be appreciated if a cabled reply could be sent to this request. Mr.
Zapf is willing to pay the cost of such cable if it is not allowable under the
regulations.
Respectfully yours,

THOMAS M. Wilson,
American Consul General.

COMPTROLLER GENERAL OF THE UNITED STATES,

Washington, February 5, 1942. Hon. Dan R. McGEHEE, Chairman, Committee on Claims,

House of Representatives. MY DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: Reference is made to your letter of January 28, 1942, acknowledged January 29, requesting a report by this office on the merits of H. R. 6457, entitled "A bill for the relief of Lacey C. Zapf.”

The bill provides as follows: “That the Secretary of the Treasury be, and he is hereby, authorized and directed to pay, out of any money in the Treasury not otherwise appropriated, to Lacey Ĉ. Zapf, the sum of $486.56, to reimburse him for the expense incident to the return of his dependent daughter, Mrs. Betty Zapf Prudden, from Sydney, Australia, to Washington, District of Columbia, in February 1940. Said Mrs. Betty Zapf Prudden being the daughter of Lacey C. Zapf, Foreign Service officer and stationed at Sydney, Australia: Provided, That no part of the amount appropriated in this Act in excess of 10 per centum thereof shall be paid or delivered to or received by any agent or attorney on account of services rendered in connection with this claim, and the same shall be unlawful, any contract to the contrary notwithstanding. Any person violating the provisions of this Act shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor and upon conviction thereof shall be fined in any sum of not exceeding $1,000.”

There is no record in this Office of any claim having been presented for the amount in question, but I am informally advised by the Department of State that the daughter mentioned in the bill was 23 years old in 1940, and when permission was requested to transport her at Government expense permission was denied for the reason that she was not a dependent within the meaning of the Foreign Service regulations. Thus, in the absence of record facts relative to this matter, I am unable to make any recommendations or suggestions upon the merits of the bill. Sincerely yours,

LINDSAY C. WARREN, Comptroller General of the United States.

MEMORANDUM

DECEMBER 26, 1941. Re reimbursement of Lacey C. Zapf, Foreign Service Officer, class II, for transportation and other expenses incident to the return of his dependent daughter, Mrs. Betty Zapf Prudden, from Sydney, Australia, to Washington, D. C.

During July 1938, the undersigned, Lacey C. Zapf, submitted to the President of the United States his resignation as Assistant Director, Bureau of Foreign and Domestic Commerce, Department of Commerce, Washington, D. C., in order to accept appointment as American trade commissioner to Australia.

Under travel order issued by the Department of Commerce, dated September 16, 1938, Mrs. Betty Zapf Prudden, then over 21 years of age, dependent daughter of the undersigned, Lacey C. Zapf, was authorized to travel at Government expense from her home in Washington, D. C., to Sydney, Australia. as a member of the family of the said Lacey C. Zapf.

Subsequent to her arrival in Australia, on October 31, 1938, Mr. Prudden's health had shown slow decline, because of which it became necessary for the said Lacey C. Zapf to return his dependent daughter, Mrs. Betty Zapf Prudden, to her home in Washington, D. C. Mrs. Prudden sailed on her home journey from Sydney, Australia, on February 2, 1940.

Effective July 1, 1939, the said Lacey C. Zapf was transferred, under the reorganization plan of the President of the United States, from the Department of Commerce to the Department of State. Under the regulations by which the Department of State was bound, the Department of State could not authorize the transportation of Mrs. Prudden at Government expense.

In view of the fact that when the said Lacey C. Zapf was assigned to Australia as American Trade Commissioner, under the supervision of the Department of Commerce, he was entitled, under the regulations of the Department of Commerce, to take with him, at Government expense, his dependent daughter, Mrs. Betty Zapf Prudden, and in view of the further fact that, due to his transfer for the convenience of the Government, from the Department of Commerce to the Department of State, the aid Lacey C. Zapf could not have his dependent daughter, Mrs. Betty Zapf I rudden, returned to her home in Washington, D. C.,

[merged small][ocr errors]
« PreviousContinue »