tions on the transportation of household goods which would be sufficient to cover my household goods: Namely, 7,000 pounds. With your permission, I request that this case be brought to the attention of the Department and of the Comptroller General for a decision. MY DEAR MR. BEALL: Attached, I am transmitting a suggested bill for the relief of the undersigned. As you will recall, the National Park Service was moved to Chicago in 1942. At that time we were all moved to Chicago, with no cost to the individual. Upon my return from Europe in 1946, the National Park Service transferred me back to the Washington liaison office. It was not until July 1947 that I was able to find a place to live; and, at that time, I moved my furniture back from Chicago. Due to the fact that the war emergency had been declared over, the old standard regulation of 5,000 pounds' limitation for the moving of furniture was put back into effect, which made it necessary for me to pay for that poundage over the 5,000 pounds, which amounted to $85.86. Later in the fall of 1947, Congress authorized a 7,000-pound limitation for the moving of household effects. In other words, there was a period of perhaps 4 or 5 months between the time that the war emergency was declared over and the new regulations were established by Congress, and it was during that time that my furniture was moved back from Chicago. I am certain that the National Park Service, Department of the Interior, would report favorably on the attached bill, as I have appealed the case to them, and there is no way in which they can reimburse me for this amount; and suggest that the only way in which I could have the $85.86 returned to me would be through a personal relief bill As I have purchased a home at 10 East Leland Street, Chevy Chase, Md., I am represented in Congress by you and am, therefore, transmitting this proposed bill to you for your consideration in the hope that you will see fit to introduce it in Congress and thus give the Department an opportunity to report on this case and for the consideration of the proper committee of Congress and Congress itself. While I am a member of the official family of the National Park Service of the Department of the Interior, my statements above cannot in any way commit the Service or the Department, and I am making this request of you as an individual and not as a Government official. Your consideration of this request will be greatly appreciated. Sincerely yours, Enclosed. CONRAD L. WIRTH. UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR NATIONAL PARK SERVICE Bill No. 1206 Receipt, Department of Interior. National Park Service, Director's Office, Chicago 54, Ill. Mr. CONRAD L. WIRTH, National Park Service, Washington 25, D. C.: Reimbursement for excess cost of packing and hauling household effects from Winnetka, Ill., to Chevy Chase, Md.: Payment for above shipment made to Atlas Van Lines, Inc., Chicago 26, Ill., on d. o. voucher 7-210074, October accounts of P. D. Banning, c. d. o., Chicago, Ill., 1947. CREDIT ACCOUNTS Appn. or: 14F5875 special deposits; general ledger: Special deposits; mise, rec.: suspense, Dept. of Înterior; cost account: 03; total amount received $85.86. PLEASE MAKE CHECK PAYABLE TO THE TREASURER OF THE UNITED STATES AND FORWARD TO: CHIEF ACCOUNTANT, NATIONAL PARK SERVICE, MERCHANDISE MART, CHICAGO 54, ILL September 1947. CARL F. JONES, Special Disbursing Agent, N. P. 8. HARRY WARREN MAY 31, 1949.-Committed to the Committee of the Whole House and ordered to be printed Mr. BYRNE of New York, from the Committee on the Judiciary, submitted the following REPORT [To accompany H. R. 1505] The Committee on the Judiciary, to whom was referred the bill (H. R. 1505) for the relief of Harry Warren, having considered the same, report favorably thereon with amendments and recommend that the bill do pass. The amendments are as follows: Page 1, line 6, strike out "$2,616.60", and insert "$1,212". Page 1, line 9, strike out "(1)". Page 1, line 10, strike out "and (2) from the condemnation by the United States for military purposes of cer". Insert in lieu thereof "sustained as a result of military activities". Page 2, line 1, strike out "tain real property in Van Nuys, California, owned by the said Harry Warren". The purpose of the proposed legislation is to pay the sum of $1,212 to Harry Warren, of San Fernando, Calif., in full settlement of all claims against the United States for certain losses sustained by him in 1942 in connection with the destruction of certain domesticated game birds, sustained as a result of military activities. STATEMENT OF FACTS On or about April 1, 1942, construction work was commenced by a contracting firm acting under the supervision of the local military authority in connection with enlarging the runways of the metropolitan airport, Van Nuys, Calif. On July 25, 1942, the Army obtained from Mr. Harry O. Warren, who owned property immediately adjacent to the airport, a survey, trespass, and construction permit authorizing the United States to enter upon his premises for survey purposes and improvement work incident to the airport construction. This permit included a provision admitting knowledge on the part of Mr. Warren that the United States contemplated acquiring title to his property at an early date. On August 29, 1942, an order for immediate possession of Mr. Warren's property was duly entered in the District Court of the United States for the Southern District of California, Central Division, and, pursuant to that order, on September 3, 1942, Mr. Warren was given notice to vacate the premises within 7 days. However, due to the fact that Mr. Warren was engaged in the business of raising game birds, a business which required more than the usual time to relocate, his time to vacate was extended, and he did not actually complete his removal from the premises until on or about October 3, 1942. On November 13, 1942, Mr. Warren filed an answer in the condemnation proceedings in which the order for immediate possession had been issued, wherein he alleged that the reasonable value of the property taken was $18,821.99, and that he had suffered additional damage in the amount of $2,616.60, consisting of personal property destroyed ($576), expenses of moving ($1,404.60), and loss of business and profits ($636). On August 20, 1943, Mr. Warren executed a stipulation for judgment in the action wherein he agreed that the sum of $16,500 was "fair, just, and adequate compensation inclusive of interest to be paid for the condemnation and taking of said property." A final judgment and decree in accordance with the foregoing stipulation was entered in the action on December 31, 1943. Mr. Warren's contention is that prior to April 1942 he raised pheasants and pigeons on the property; that when the construction work was commenced it was a rush job with the result that work was continued in progress 24 hours a day; that during the hours of darkness flood lights were maintained on the airport property; that inasmuch as his property, with the pens for the birds, was immediately adjacent to the airport, the birds were affected by the lights and noise to such an extent that the pheasants would "flush" and break their necks against the top screens of the pens and the pigeon mother hens would leave their nests and not return, resulting in the loss of eggs. The Department of the Army, in its report dated May 16, 1949, states that it appears that Mr. Warren's claim for damages is not based on the contention that either the United States or its contractor trespassed upon his property, or was in any manner negligent, or committed any wrongful act, but that such a claim is based solely upon the contention that as a result of the construction work on land adjacent to his own, conducted on a 24-hour basis, he sustained a financial loss in his business of raising game birds. However, it is equally apparent that he has sustained actual damages as a result of the activities of the United States, or of its contractor, and, accordingly, the Department of the Army would have no objection to an award to Mr. Warren in the amount of $576, the computed value of the birds which were lost as a result of the construction activity. However, the Department of the Army has taken into consideration only the amount suffered for loss on pheasants and does not take into consideration the loss of pigeons, which amounted to $636. The bill as introduced is for losses of pheasants and other birds and also for the condemnation of his real property. The Department of the Army is opposed to this item and your committee concurs in that opposition, but it is believed that Mr. Warren is entitled to be reimbursed for the losses on all pheasants and other birds in the amount of $1,212, and the bill is amended accordingly. Hon. EMANUEL CELLER, DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY, Chairman, Committee on the Judiciary, House of Representatives. DEAR MR. CELLER: The Department of the Army would have no objection to the enactment of H. R. 1505, Eighty-first Congress, a bill for the relief of Harry Warren, if it should be amended as hereinafter recommended. This bill provides as follows: "That the Secretary of the Treasury is authorized and directed to pay, out of any money in the Treasury not otherwise appropriated, to Harry Warren, of San Fernando, California, the sum of $2,616.60. The payment of such sum shall be in full settlement of all claims against the United States for certain losses sustained by the said Harry Warren in 1942, which losses resulted (1) from the destruction of certain domesticated game birds, and (2) from the condemnation by the United States for military purposes of certain real property in Van Nuys, California, owned by the said Harry Warren." On or about April 1, 1942, construction work was commenced by a contracting firm acting under the supervision of the local military authority in connection with enlarging the runways of the metropolitan airport, Van Nuys, Calif. On July 25, 1942, the Army obtained from Mr. Harry O. Warren, who owned property immediately adjacent to the airport, a survey, trespass, and construction permit authorizing the United States to enter upon his premises for survey purposes and improvement work incident to the arport construction. This permit included a provision admitting knowledge on the part of Mr. Warren that the United States contemplated acquiring title of his property at an early date. On August 29, 1942, an order for immediate possession of Mr. Warren's property was duly entered in the District Court of the United States for the Southern District of California, Central Division, and, pursuant to that order, on September 3, 1942, Mr. Warren was given notice to vacate the premises within 7 days. However, due to the fact that Mr. Warren was engaged in the business of raising game birds, a business which required more than the usual time to relocate, his time to vacate was extended, and he did not actually complete his removal from the premises until on or about October 3, 1942. On November 13, 1942, Mr. Warren filed an answer in the condemnation proceedings in which the order for immediate possession had been issued, wherein he alleged that the reasonable value of the property taken was $18,821.99, and that he had suffered additional damage in the amount of $2,616.60, consisting of personal property destroyed ($576), expenses of moving ($1,404.60), and loss of business and profits ($636). On August 20, 1943, Mr. Warren executed a stipulation for judgment in the action wherein he agreed that the sum of $16,500 was "fair, just, and adequate compensation inclusive of interest to be paid for the condemnation and taking of said property." A final judgment and decree in accordance with the foregoing stipulation was entered in the action on December 31, 1943. Mr. Warren's contention is that prior to April 1942 he raised pheasants and pigeons on the property; that when the construction work was commenced it was a rush job with the result that work was continued in progress 24 hours a day; that during the hours of darkness floodlights were maintained on the airport property; that inasmuch as his property, with the pens for the birds, was immediately adjacent to the airport, the birds were affected by the lights and noise to such an extent that the pheasants would "flush" and break their necks against the top screens of the pens and the pigeon mother hens would leave their nests and not return, resulting in the loss of eggs. It thus appears that Mr. Warren's claim for damages is not based on the contention that either the United States or its contractor trespassed upon his property, or was in any manner negligent, or committed any wrongful act, but that such claim is based solely upon the contention that as a result of the construction work on land adjacent to his own, conducted on a 24-hour basis, he sustained a financial loss in his business of raising game birds. Under the circumstances it is apparent that there is no legal basis for Mr. Warren's claim (E. W. Nelson v. McKenzie-Hague Co., 192 Minn. 180, 256 N. W. 96). However, it is equally apparent that he has sustained actual damages as a result of the activities of the United States, or of its contractor, and, accordingly, the Department of the Army would have no objection to an award to Mr. Warren in the amount of $576, the computed value of the birds which were lost as a result of the construction activity. |