Page images
PDF
EPUB

A boy had been poisoned working in a munitions factory; he had become ill and was sent to the marine hospital. The doctor there said it was T. N. T. poisoning. The boy was removed to his home, and the only physician at his home was a country doctor, who had never had a case of T. N. T. poisoning, and he did not know what it was and said it was jaundice. The boy became so much worse he was sent to the hospital, and another fine specialist said it was T. N. T. poisoning, and th boy died.

The Comptroller General referring to that case said the commission allowed that case when a doctor in the case called it jaundice.

That shows that the comptroller did not have the time to go into it and see that two specialists had said it was T. N. T. poisoning and could only come from the boy's occupation.

I wrote the comptroller, and he would not change his decision. I asked him if he would not change it as a matter of record; it might come up in the future, and it might prejudice the case if anything should come up to the relatives of that boy, and they should be entitled to anything, but my request was refused. That case has gone in the records as the commission passing on it even though one doctor calls it jaundice.

That is the reason it is dangerous for anyone who has not the time to review the findings of the commission.

When he referred this to the Attorney General, and he went into the whole thing, he came out with his opinion that it was not.

I want to ask you gentlemen one thing: I may be wrong, but is it not a practice in law when an act is worded so that the language seems ambiguous and anyone has to interpret it, to go back and find the intent of the creators of that act, those who used the language?

I asked the Attorney General that. His construction of the act is narrow in spite of the fact the creators of this act had said what they intended. He stands pat on his narrow construction, and his answer to me was, "I put my own construction on any law, and that construction stays unless Congress wishes to amend it."

Mr. DYER. Mrs. Brueggeman, I think Congress will endeavor to make that plain enough so that the comptroller himself can see what the law is.

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Vaile, you have suggested two amendments in your bill, one on page 2, line 12, before the words "officer" insert ths words" or accounting"?

. Mr. VAILE. Yes, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. And then on page 3 at the end of the paragraph you want these words inserted:

Provided, however, That this shall not in any way reduce the amount of the monthly compensation payable in case of disability or death.

Mr. VALLE. Yes, sir. That also in accordance with the suggestion by the Comptroller General.

The CHAIRMAN. So that you and the Comptroller General agree as to these two amendments?

Mr. VAILE. Yes, sir.

Mr. MONTAGUE. Mr. Chairman, may I ask one question?

The CHAIRMAN. Yes, sir.

Mr. MONTAGUE. Is there any difference between this bill and the bill which was reported by this committee and was before the House last year?

Mr. VAILE. There are some minor differences; no difference in substance.

Mr. MONTAGUE. That is all. I just wanted to know that.

The CHAIRMAN. Substantially the same, but different words.
Mr. VAILE. Are we excused, Mr. Chairman?

The CHAIRMAN. Yes; that is all.

Mr. DYER. In order that this matter, which is of great importance, especially to those entitled to receive their compensation, may be disposed of, I move, Mr. Chairman, that the bill be reported favorably with the two amendments which have been suggested, and also that the chairman be authorized, if in his judgment he thinks it necessary, to ask for a special rule to take the matter up. The motion was agreed to.

The CHAIRMAN. So ordered. The bill will be reported.

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, Washington, D. C., March 4, 1924.

MY DEAR CHAIRMAN: It has been my earnest desire to have an opportunity to appear before your committee during the hearings in connection with the United States employees' compensation bill (H. R. 7041), but I find it is necessary for me to be out of town to-morrow, when this bill is to be taken up. May I therefore take this means of voicing my opinion in favor of the measure? The decision recently rendered by the Comptroller General of the United States will work a great hardship on many employees unless some action is taken by Congress to correct the injustice that will be done. Many pitiful cases have come to my attention as a result of the Comptroller General's decision, one, in particular, being a resident of my district, in which I am very much interested.

This is the case of a man who for four years has been receiving compensation from the Employees' Compensation Commission. He is almost totally blind, and when he called to see me about a year ago he was led into my office by an escort, this being the result of gas fumes which penetrated into his eyes while employed in the Brooklyn Navy Yard. The compensation he has been receiving has been the only means of support for himself and family, and its discontinuance is wholly unjust and uncalled for.

I believe the United States Employees' Compensation Commission should be given the explicit authority to adjust claims without having their records reviewed by any other branch of the service. I am sure the commission is capable or doing this capably and without discrimination.

Trusting your committee will see fit to favorably report this bill out without much delay, and thanking you, I remain,

Sincerely yours,

Hon. GEORGE S. GRAHAM,

Chairman Judiciary Committee,

House of Representatives.

SAMUEL DICKSTEIN.

>

[merged small][merged small][merged small][ocr errors][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small]
« PreviousContinue »