Page images
PDF
EPUB

а

1528. Death from various causes and slavery among the Indians separated and reduced the number of survivors during the succeeding 6 years to four Spaniards and a Negro.

Alvar Nunez Cabeza de Vaca, treasurer of the De Narvaez expedition, was one of these five survivors, and for the most part, we are indebted to him for the recorded story of the expedition and the adventures of the few who were eventually to reach the Spanish settlements of New Spain. The authenticity of the account of the expedition, the hardships endured, and the fact that these finally reached the settlements in the spring of 1536 have never been questioned.

During the first winter after reaching the Texas coast the surviving Spaniards were parceled out among the Indians as slaves. Cabeza de Vaca began early to plan escape but, according to his narrative, delayed 6 years in the hope he might také with him his friend Lope de

6 Oviedo.

Late in the year 1534 all details were worked out for the escape and De Vaca with two friends and the Negro, all being survivors of the original De Narvaez expedition, made their way, with the help of friendly Indians whom they encountered, from an island-now generally believed to have been Galveston Island-across the continent to the settlements of New Spain. Some of our most eminent historians lay the route of Cabeza de Vaca through the present city of Alpine, Tex., and through the big bend country of the Rio Grande.

Cabeza de Vaca was the first European to traverse this great wilderness and we believe his expedition should be fittingly. commemorated by the issuance of the special coin provided by the bill under consideration.

Assurance was given at the hearing that the museum committee will guarantee the entire issue and no coins will be returned to the Treasury. The enactment of this bill will result in no expense to the United States.

Representative R. Ewing Thomason, of Texas, author of the bill, appeared before the committee and gave the members historical data in reference to the Old Spanish Trail as well as assured the committee there would be no expense to the Government if the bill was enacted into law.

O

COINAGE OF 50-CENT PIECES IN COMMEMORATION OF THE ONE HUNDRED AND FIFTIETH ANNIVERSARY OF THE FOUNDING OF THE CITY OF HUDSON, N. Y.

APRIL 2, 1935.-Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the state

of the Union and ordered to be printed

Mr. COCHRAN, from the Committee on Coinage, Weights, and

Measures, submitted the following

REPORT

[To accompany H. R. 6457)

do pass.

The Committee on Coinage, Weights, and Measures, to whom was referred the bill (H. R. 6457) to authorize the coinage of 50-cent pieces in connection with the one hundred and fiftieth anniversary of the founding of the city of Hudson, N. Y., having considered the same, report favorably thereon and recommend the bill, as amended,

The amendment is as follows:

In line 5, after the word "mint", strike out "six" and insert the word “ten".

Representative Philip A. Goodwin, of New York, author of the bill, appeared before the committee and assured the members that the city of Hudson or the committee in charge will guarantee the entire issue and no coins will be returned to the Treasury. The enactment of the bill will result in no expense to the United States.

In connection with the bill Mr. Goodwin submitted the following letter to the acting chairman of the committee:

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,

Washington, D. C., March 30, 1935. Hon. JOAN J. COCHRAN, Acting Chairman Committee on Coinage, Weights, and Measures,

House of Representatives, Washington, D. C. MY DEAR COLLEAGUE: In line with your conversation with me yesterday regarding a brief résumé of the city of Hudson's history for the information of the Coinage, Weights, and Measures Committee in connection with bill H. R. 6457, I am pleased to give you below the following statement:

A careful perusal of the journal, of the voyage, in 1609, of Henry Hudson, in his ship Half Moon, in his endeavor to find a short route via the Hudson River to the Empire of Cathay, shows that on his first visit, he landed at the site of what is now the city of Hudson, in the State of New York. The city bears his name.

*43-35

Henry Hudson was an Englishman in the employ of the Dutch East India Co. He was the first white man to enter upon the site of the present city of Hudson. History states, “It is a pleasant thought that his descendants have been residents of our country.”

The city of Hudson was originally embraced within the limits of the town of Claverack and of the county of Columbia formed in 1786, and was known as “Claverack Landing:

At an early period of the Revolution, the whale fisheries of Nantucket were broken up by the English marine. In 1783 a considerable number of the inhabitants, desirious of bettering their fortunes, determined to leave it and make a settlement somewhere upon the Hudson River, and these people entered into a compact with articles of agreement providing for its development. The site of the development was Claverack Landing. On February 17, 1785, it was voted that a petition be drafted to be laid before the legislative authority of the State for the purpose of incorporation, with city privileges.

The General Assembly in session in New York on the 22d of April 1785 granted the petition and the city of Hudson received its charter, becoming the third city in the State of New York. On May 23, 1810, the last meeting of the proprietors of the original company met and delivery of their books and plot of the city was made to the clerk of the city for the passage of a law by the legislature for confirmation of all the divisions made by them. At this time the population of the city was 5,000.

The people of the city of Hudson, descendants of these old Dutch and English families, are particularly proud of their old city and its traditions. A very unusual love and respect for their ancestors is existent, and it is my earnest hope that your Committee on Coinage, Weights, and Measures will grant to the city of Hudson the privilege of a commemorative coin on the anniversary of their one hundred and fiftieth birthday, after a history of loyalty and allegiance to the United States, as one of the first cities of this country. Respectfully submitted.

Philip A. GOODWIN, M. C. o

AMEND SECTION 12 OF THE ACT APPROVED MAY 18, 1920

(41 STAT. 604; U.S. C., TITLE 34, SEC. 896), AS AMENDED

APRIL 3, 1935.-Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the state

of the Union and ordered to be printed

Mr. Young, from the Committee on Naval Affairs, submitted the

following

REPORT

(To accompany H. R. 6629)

The Committee on Naval Affairs, to whom was referred the bill (H. R. 6629) to amend section 12 of the act approved May 18, 1920 (41 Stat. 604; U. S. C., title 34, sec. 896), as amended, having considered the same, report it to the House with the recommendation that it do pass.

The purpose of this bill is to provide that the words “permanent change of station" as used in section 12 of the act of May 18, 1920, as amended, shall be held to include the home of an officer or man who is ordered to his home to await orders. Briefly, this bill would provide that an officer or man ordered to his home to await orders, and there is no present intention that he shall return to his former station, would be making a permanent change of station and therefore entitled to transportation at Government expense for his wife and dependent child or children.

The Court of Claims has, in each case, supported the contention of the Navy Department that when an officer or man is ordered to his home to await orders his dependents are entitled to transportation at Government expense. This is so indicated in the statement of the Judge Advocate General of the Navy made before the Committee on Naval Affairs which is as follows:

Since the passage of this act, the Navy Department has contended that when an officer or one of the enlisted men coming within the categories included in the act was ordered home to await orders, and there is no present intention that he shall return to his former station, that the officer or man was making a permanent change of station within the meaning of the above statute and that his wife and dependent children were authorized to make their travel at Government expense. The usual case is where an officer is ordered to his home to await orders prior to retirement.

*ts

The Comptroller General has in each instance ruled to the contrary. There have been several decisions of the Court of Claims under this particular statute and as far as is known in every case the court has decided in favor of the officer.

No appeal has ever been taken to the Supreme Court. The Navy Department believes that these several decisions of the Court of Claims sufficiently interpret the meaning of the law with regard to this very restricted question. However, as late as February 27, 1935, the Comptroller General reiterates that in the future he will allow no claims of this nature.

The bill has been introduced by the chairman of the committee with the view to clarifying this particular statute.

The Navy Department believes that the present statute is clear in view of the fact that there have been several decisions of the Court of Claims on the identical question and that in each case, it has been decided in favor of the claimant. If this legislation is passed, it will clarify the situation in regard to this statute, prevent officers from having to go to court at their own expense, save the money that the Government would spend to defend these suits and effectually end this long-standing difference of opinion.

Your attention is invited to the fact that this bill will not only affect the Navy and the Marine Corps but also the other four services coming within the purview of section 12 of the act.

The Navy Department interposes no objection to the enactment of the proposed amendment, as is indicated by the letter of the Secretary of the Navy to the Chairman of the Committee on Naval Affairs and which is hereby made a part of this report.

Navy DEPARTMENT,
OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY,

Washington, March 14, 1935. CHAIRMAN COMMITTEE ON NAVAL AFFAIRS,

House of Representatives. MY DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: The bill (H. R. 6629) to amend section 12 of the act approved May 18, 1920 (41 Stat. 604; U. S. C., title 34, sec. 896) as amended, has been referred by your committee to the Navy Department for comment.

The purpose of this bill is to provide that the words “permanent change of station” as used in section 12 of the act of May 18, 1920, as amended, shall be held to include the home of an officer or man who is ordered to his home to await orders. Briefly, this bill would provide that an officer or man ordered to his home to await orders, and there is no present intention that he shall return to his former station, would be making a permanent change of station and therefore entitled to transportation at government expense for his wife and dependent child or children.

The act of May 18, 1920 (41 Stat. 604; U. S. C., title 34, sec. 896) provides in part:

That hereafter when any commissioned officer, noncommissioned officer of the grade of color sergeant and above, including any noncommissioned officer of the Marine Corps of corresponding grade, warrant officer, chief petty officer, or petty officer (first class) having a 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, the 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."

This section was amended by section 12 of the Joint Service Pay Act of June 10, 1922 (42 Stat. 631), as amended and reenacted by the act of June 1, 1926 (44 Stat. 680, 681), to provide that in lieu of the transportation in kind which was authorized by the act of May 18, 1920, to be furnished for dependents, the President may authorize the payment in money of amounts equal to such commercial transportation cost when such travel shall have been completed, and that dependent children shall be such as are defined in section 4 of the act of June 10, 1922. An additional amendment was made by the act of February 21, 1929,

« PreviousContinue »