Page images
PDF
EPUB

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.

[merged small][ocr errors]

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.

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.

CHAIRMAN COMMITTEE ON NAVAL AFFAIRS,

NAVY DEPARTMENT,
OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY,
Washington, March 14, 1985.

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 Ŝtat. 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,

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)

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, 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

(2)

That the words "permanent change of station" as used in section 12 of the Act approved May 18, 1920 (42 Stat. 604; U. S. C., title 34, sec. 896), as amended, shall be held to include the home of an officer or man who is ordered to his home to await orders.

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 1w 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.)

« PreviousContinue »