Gambar halaman
PDF
ePub

IN RE APPEAL OF JUNIATA E. CUNNINGHAM FOR REIMBURSEMENT OF BURIAL EXPENSES OF PEN

SIONER.

When a claimant for reimbursement for the expenses of the burial of a deceased pensioner declines to furnish evidence of the assets left by the deceased, in order that it may be decided whether such assets were sufficient to meet the burial expenses, the action of the Auditor in disallowing the claim will be affirmed.

TREASURY DEPARTMENT,

OFFICE OF COMPTROLLER OF THE TREASURY,

September 10, 1895.

Juniata E. Cunningham, of Altoona, Pa., appeals from the action of the Auditor for the Interior Department, as evidenced by his decision No. 2887, of May 13, 1895. The claim is for reimbursement of the expenses of last sickness and burial of Eliza Cunningham, widow (certificate No. 28783), under the provisions of the act of March 2, 1895 (28 Stat., 964), section 4718, Revised Statutes.

The claim was disallowed by the Auditor for the reason "that pensioner left sufficient assets to meet the expenses of last sickness and burial, such assets consisting of a house and household furniture, value not given, while the expenses amount to $112."

The claimant appealed from this decision, and on being called on for additional evidence in relation to the case declines to furnish the same. The evidence now on file is not sufficient to establish the fact that the assets of decedent were not sufficient to meet the expenses incurred in the last sickness and burial; therefore the action of the Auditor is affirmed. EDW. A. BOWERS, Acting Comptroller.

IN RE INDEMNITY CLAIM OF THOMAS W. HEALEY FOR LOSS OF PERSONAL PROPERTY ON THE U. S. S. KEARSARGE, UNDER THE ACT OF MARCH 2, 1895.

In settling claims under the act "to provide for the reimbursement of officers and seamen for property lost or destroyed in the naval service of the United States," of March 2, 1895, the accounting officers must allow the actual value of private property "at the date of loss or destruction" when such actual value is proved by the claimant.

As petty officers and seamen in the naval service are not required to procure their clothing and personal effects from the paymaster upon requisitions, they are not, in proving the value of their property at the date of loss or destruction when claiming reimbursement under the act of March 2, 1895, limited to the paymaster's issuing price, but may, by such evidence as is required to clearly establish the fact, prove the actual value of their personal property at the date of loss or destruction. In the absence of such proof the "issuing price" may be accepted as a fair valuation.

Officers and men presenting claims under the act of March 2, 1895, can be reimbursed only for "such articles of personal property as are required by the United States Naval Regulations,” both as to number and kind, and the accounting officers can not allow claims for articles in excess of the regulation requirements which they are permitted to carry for their personal comfort or convenience.

TREASURY DEPARTMENT,

OFFICE OF COMPTROLLER OF THE TREASURY,

September 12, 1895.

The claimant appeals from the settlement by the Auditor for the Navy Department on his claim for indemnity on account of clothing and personal effects lost by the destruction of the United States flagship Kearsarge, under the provisions of the act of March 2, 1895, "to provide for the reimbursement of officers and seamen for property lost or destroyed in the naval service of the United States." (28 Stat., 962.)

The Auditor, in settling the first claim under this act, on April 27, 1895, certified his decision to the Comptroller for his approval, disapproval, or modification, as required by the act of July 31, 1894, and, upon May 7, 1895, the Comptroller decided (1 Comp. Dec., 441) that—

[ocr errors]

"By the words shipwreck or other marine disaster,' as used in the act, is meant shipwreck or marine disaster to the ship itself, involving a total or partial destruction or casting away of the ship; not such a temporary disaster as waves washing over the ship's deck, or such like misfortunes as are necessarily incident to the navigation of ships on the waters of the seas" — approving this construction of the act made by the Auditor. But he said:

"On the second branch of the case I can not agree with the construction you have made by which you allow reimbursement for certain articles of personal property 'not required by the regulations of the Navy Department, but reasonably necessary for the use of the officers or seamen on the particular cruise on which the loss occurred.' This act enlarges the measure of relief given by sectious 288, 289, and 290 of the Revised

A

Statutes, but expressly limits that enlargement of relief by a proviso, which reads as follows: "That the liability of the Government under this act shall be limited to such articles of personal property as are required by the United States Naval Regulations, and in force at the time of such loss or destruction, for such officers, petty officers, seamen, or others engaged in the public service in the line of duty.' I am of the opinion that the discretion of the accounting officers of the Treasury is plainly so limited by this proviso of the act that no allowance or reimbursement can be properly made, except for such articles of personal property as are expressly required by the regulations of the Navy Department."

A review of the whole question is now asked in the appeal taken in the case of Healey. After a careful consideration of the matter in the light of the arguments presented by the claimant's counsel, together with his evidence, including the statements of officers of high rank in the Navy, I am unable to see that these conclusions of the Comptroller are open to objection.

In the settlement of this and similar claims the three important portions of the act for consideration are:

"That the proper accounting officers of the Treasury be, and they are hereby, authorized and directed to examine into, ascertain, and determine the value of the private property belonging to officers, petty officers, seamen, and others in the naval service of the United States which has been or may hereafter be lost and destroyed in the naval service by shipwreck or other marine disaster; * * Provided further, That the liability of the Government under this act shall be limited to such articles of personal property as are required by the United States Naval Regulations, and in force at the time of loss or destruction, for such officers, petty officers, seamen, or others engaged in the public service, in the line of duty; And provided further, That the value of the article or articles lost or destroyed shall be their value at the date of loss or destruction."

A critical examination of these provisions makes it apparent: 1. That the accounting officers must inquire into and determine the actual value of the private property belonging to the seamen at the date of the loss, and that it is not proper in settling these claims to follow any arbitrary valuation that may be fixed, such as "the issuing price" (that is, the price at which similar articles are issued to the men by paymasters upon requisitions), to the exclusion of all proof tending to show another value, although in the absence of proof such valuation may be followed. When the actual value is to be determined

by evidence submitted by the claimants, it should show not only the original cost of the article, but the length of time it has been in use and its value, as provided in the second proviso quoted, "at the date of the loss."

2. That the only articles for which the persons falling within the remedial provisions of this act can claim indemnity are "such articles of personal property as are required by the United States Naval Regulations." From this it follows that such articles as are permitted, or those usually carried for their convenience by officers and seamen, are not proper subjects for reimbursement. It also follows that claims for citizens' clothes, which are permitted to officers only by the Uniform Naval Regulations of 1886, under paragraphs 3 and 5 of page 3, can not be allowed. It was clearly the intention of the act to limit the liability of the Government to such articles as officers and men require in the performance of their military duties, and such, therefore, as would be covered by the Naval Regulations, which would naturally provide those things necessary for the efficient service of officers and men on shipboard. Much difficulty has been experienced in settling claims of this character because of the lack of clear and distinct provisions in the regulations governing the Navy as to the character and quantity of such personal property required under these regulations. An examination of the volume entitled "United States Navy Regulations, 1893," fails to disclose this information, and under these circumstances not only have the Uniform Naval Regulations of 1886 been followed, but also, in order to ascertain what was required by the regulations of the Navy, a communication was addressed by the Auditor for the Navy Department to the Secretary of the Navy, requesting information upon this subject, and in reply thereto the Secretary of the Navy transmitted, on April 16, 1895, a communication from Admiral F. M. Ramsay, Chief of the Bureau of Navigation. This communication is as follows:

"WASHINGTON, D. C., April 16, 1895.

[Second indorsement.]

"Subject: Auditor for the Navy Department requests information in regard to the claims of the officers and enlisted men who served on board of the United States ships Tallapoosa, Despatch, and Kearsarge for indemnity for losses.

"1. Respectfully returned to the Secretary of the Navy. "2. List of articles required by regulations for the commis

sioned officers of the Navy engaged in the public service, in the line of duty, on the Tallapoosa, Despatch, and Kearsarge, at the time of their loss:

(1) Special full dress coat.
(1) Full dress trousers.
(1) Chapeau (complete).
(1) Epaulets (complete).
(1) Full dress sword belt.
(1) Undress sword belt.
(1) Sword.

(1) Sword knot.

(1) Full dress coat.

(1) Full dress waistcoat.

(1) Full dress waistcoat, white. (Required only by officers of the

Tallapoosa).

(1) Frock coat (undress).

(1) Shoulder straps, pair.

(3) Undress and service trousers, blue.

(6) Undress and service trousers, white.

(2) Undress and service waistcoats, blue.

(3) Undress and service waistcoats, white.
(2) Service coats, blue (blouses).

(3) Service coats, white (blouses).

(2) Caps, blue.

(1) Cap, white. (Required only by officers of the Tallapoosa.) (1) Helmet. (Not required by the officers of the Tallapoosa.) (1) Overcoat (complete).

(1) Rain coat.

(1) Rain hat.

(1) Rain boots.

(1) Pair leggings.

(6) Gloves, white lisle thread, cotton or leather, pairs.

(4) Neckties.

(36) White collars.

(3) Boots or shoes, pairs.

"3. List of additional articles of outfit required by each commissioned officer of the Navy engaged in the public service, in the line of duty, on the Tallapoosa, Despatch, and Kearsarge, at the time of their loss:

[blocks in formation]
« SebelumnyaLanjutkan »