« PreviousContinue »
further defining the words "child" and "children". For the purpose of considering the bill (H. R. 6629), the language of these amendments is immaterial.
Since the passage of the act of May 18, 1920, the Navy Department has been of the opinion that the personnel named in that act, when ordered to their homes to await orders, there being no present intention that they shall return to their former stations, have been ordered to make a permanent change of station and transportation must be furnished by the Government for their dependents.
The Comptroller General in each instance has ruled to the contrary, his contention being that an officer ordered home to await orders has not made a permanent change of station. There have been at least 11 cases, where the officers who were denied transportation for dependents under the ruling of the Comptroller General brought suit in the Court of Claims. In every case the Court of Claims decided in favor of the claimant. No appeal from any one of those cases has been taken to the Supreme Court.
The first of the 11 cases decided by the Court of Claims on this question was Bullard v. U. S. (66 Ct. Cls. 264, Oct. 15, 1928), and the most recent Toaz v. U. S. (Court of Claims No. 42537, Dec. 3, 1934). Notwithstanding those decisions of the Court of Claims, the Comptroller General as recent as February 27, 1935, stated that in the future he will allow no claims of this nature.
The Navy Department believes that, in view of the court decisions, the law is settled. Congress has appropriated the money to pay the judgment of the Court of Claims in each of the cases which thus far have been certified to it.
The enactment of H. R. 6629 would clarify the now existing situation and the Navy Department interposes no objection to its enactment. Sincerely yours,
CLAUDE A. SWANSON. In compliance with clause 2a of rule XIII of the Rules of the House of Representatives there is herewith printed in parallel columns (1) the text of the provisions of existing laws which it is proposed to repeal or amend, and (2) the parts of the bill making the repeal or amendment: (1)
(2) That hereafter when any commis- That the words “permanent change sioned officer, noncommissioned officer of station” as used in section 12 of the of the grade of color sergeant and above Act approved May 18, 1920 (42 Stat. including any noncommissioned officer 604; V. S. C., title 34, sec. 896), as of the Marine Corps of corresponding amended, shall be held to include the grade warrant officer, chief petty offi- home of an officer or man who is ordered cer, or petty officer (first class) having to his home to await orders. & wife or dependent child or children, is ordered to make a permanent change of station, the United States shall furnish transportation in kind from funds appropriated for the transportation of the Army, Navy, the Marine Corps, the Coast Guard, the Coast and Geodetic Survey, and the Public Health Service to his new station for the wife and dependent child or children: Provided, That for persons in the naval service the term “permanent station”, as used in this section, shall be interpreted to mean a shore station or the home yard of the vessel to which the person concerned may be ordered; and a duly authorized change in home yard or home port of such vessel shall be deemed a change of station: Provided further, That if the cost of such transportation exceeds that for transportation from the old to the new station the excess cost shall be paid to the United States by the officer concerned: Provided further, That transportation supplied the
wife or dependent child or children of such officer, to or from stations beyond the continental limits of the United States, shall not be other than by Government transport, if such transportation is available: And provided further, That the personnel of the Navy shall have the benefit of all existing laws applying to the Army and the Marine Corps for the transportation of household effects. (Act approved May 18, 1920.)
In lieu of the transportation in kind authorized by section lw of an Act entitled “An Act to increase the efficiency of the commissioned and enlisted personnel of the Army, Navy, Marine Corps, Coast Guard, Coast and Geodetic Survey, and Public Health Service”, approved May 18, 1920, to be furnished by the United States for dependents, the President may authorize the payment in money of amounts equal to such commercial transportation costs when such travel shall have been completed. (Amendment in the Act approved June 10, 1922.)
That the words "child" and "children" as used in section 12 of the Act approved May 18, 1920, and in section 4 of the Act approved June 10, 1922, and in section 12 of the Act approved June 10, 1922, as amended by the Act approved June 1, 1923, shall be held to include legitimate children, stepchildren, or adopted children are in fact dependent upon the person claiming dependency allowance. (Act approved Feb. 21, 1929.)
COUNTERFEIT POSTMARKING STAMPS
APRIL 3, 1935.- Referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be printed
Mr. ASHBROOK, from the Committee on the Post Office and Post
Roads, submitted the following
(To accompany H. R. 5049)
The Committee on the Post Office and Post Roads, having had under consideration the bill (H. R. 5049) providing punishment for forging or counterfeiting any postmarking stamp, report the same back to the House with the following amendments:
In line 4, after "stamp,” insert “or impression thereof with intent to make it appear that such impression is a genuine postmark,”.
In line 5, after "any" strike out the word "such”.
In line 6, at the end of the line after "engraving," insert "or such impression thereof,”.
So amended, the committee recommends that the bill do pass.
At present there is no law providing punishment for forging or counterfeiting postmarking stamps and an increasing necessity therefor has been demonstrated in the experience of the Department. Hearings were held by your committee at which representatives of the Post Office Department pointed out the need of safeguarding the postmarking stamps used by postmasters in canceling stamps on letters, which have considerable legal significance under certain circumstances. Attention was also called to the increasing interest in philatelic matters and the importance attached to cachets on envelops, the committee being informed that it is a simple matter to counterfeit the cachets and difficult to distinguish the imitation from the genuine.
The bill provides punishment for such offenses to the extent of a fine of not more than $1,000 or imprisonment of not more than 5 years, or both.
The committee, after consultation with the Post Office Department, suggests that the bill be extended so as to include impressions of postmarking stamps as well.
This proposed legislation meets with the approval of the Post Office Department. The Postmaster General's report reads as follows:
Post OFFICE DEPARTMENT,
February 20, 1935.
House of Representatives. My Dear MR. MEAD: The receipt is acknowledged of your letter of the 16th instant, requesting a report on H. R. 5049, a bill providing punishment for forging or counterfeiting any postmarking stamp.
At present there is no law providing punishment for forging or counterfeiting postmarking stamps, and that increasing necessity therefor has been demonstrated in the experience of the Department. Very truly yours,
JAMES A. Farley,
Postmaster General. O
FRAUDULENT INTERCEPTION OF MAIL MATTER
APRIL 3, 1935.-Referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be printed
Mr. ASHBROOK, from the Committee on the Post Office and Post
Roads, submitted the following
(To accompany H. R. 5162)
The Committee on the Post Office and Post Roads, having had under consideration the bill (H. R. 5162) providing for punishment for attempts to obtain mail by fraud or by deception, reports the same back to the House with the following amendment:
In line 11, after “mail” insert a comma.
The law provides a fine of not more than $2,000, or imprisonment of not more than 5 years, or both, as punishment in cases where mail is obtained by fraud or deception, but does not cover attempts to obtain the mail. It is believed that an attempt to obtain mail by fraud or deception should carry the same punishment as if mail was actually obtained, and your committee therefore recommends the enactment of the pending legislation.
The amendment suggested by the committee is merely to clarify the bill. Following is the Post Office Department's report on the measure:
OFFICE OF THE PostMASTER GENERAL,
February 20, 1935. Hon. James M. MEAD, Chairman Committee on the Post Office and Post Roads,
House of Representatives. MY DEAR MR. MEAD: The receipt is acknowledged of your letter of the 16th instant, requesting a report on H. R. 5162, a bill providing for punishment for attempts to obtain mail by fraud or by deception.
The Department is receiving an increasing number of complaints of attempts to intercept mail matter by filing of a forged or otherwise false forwarding order. Under existing law no violation is committed unless mail is actually obtained, even though it is diverted from its regular channels and delayed in reaching the addressee. It is believed that an attempt to obtain mail by fraud or deception should carry the same punishment as if mail was actually obtained. Very truly yours,
JAMES A. FARLEY, Postmaster General.