A HEARING ON H. R. 12548, A BILL FOR THE RELIEF OF MARGARET VAUGHN HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, Tuesday, January 8, 1929. The subcommittee this day met at 11.30 o'clock a. m., Hon. Clark Burdick, chairman, presiding. Mr. BURDICK. The next bill for consideration this morning is H. R. 12548, for the relief of Margaret Vaughn. The clerk will read the bill and the report thereon by the Navy Department. (The clerk read as follows:) [H. R. 12548, Seventieth Congress, first session] A BILL For the relief of Margaret Vaughn Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the Paymaster General of the Navy is authorized and directed to pay, out of funds appropriated for the pay of the Navy, to Margaret Vaughn, mother of Cornelius Vaughn, late boiler maker, first class, United States Navy, an amount equal to six months' pay at the rate received by such Cornelius Vaughn at the time of his death. [No. 473] FOR THE RELIEF OF MARGARET VAUGHN (H. R. 12548) The CHAIRMAN COMMITTEE ON NAVAL AFFAIRS, NAVY DEFARTMENT, Washington, May 15, 1928. House of Representatives, Washington, D. C. MY DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: Replying further to the committee's letter of April 3, 1928, transmitting the bill (H. R. 12548) for the relief of Margaret Vaughn, and requesting the views and recommendations of the Navy Department thereon, I have the honor to advise you as follows: The purpose of the proposed legislation is to authorize and direct the Paymaster General of the Navy to pay, out of funds appropriated for the pay of the Navy, to Margaret Vaughn, mother of Cornelius Vaughn, late boiler maker, first class, United States Navy, an amount equal to six months' pay at the rate received by such Cornelius Vaughn at the time of his death. The law governing the payment of six months' death gratuity is set forth in title 34, section 943, United States Code, as follows: "Immediately upon official notification of the death from wounds or disease, not the result of his or her own misconduct, of any officer, enlisted man, or nurse on the active list of the regular Navy or regular Marine Corps, or on the retired list when on active duty, the Paymaster General of the Navy shall cause to be paid to the widow, and if there be no widow to the child or children, and if there be no widow or child, to any other dependent relative of such officer,. enlisted man, or nurse previously designated by him or her, an amount equal to six months' pay at the rate received by such officer, enlisted man, or nurse at the date of his or her death. The Secretary of the Navy shall establish regulations requiring each officer and enlisted man or nurse having no wife or child to designate the proper dependent relative to whom this amount shall be paid in (379) 2197-29-No. 52★ case of his or her death. Said amount shall be paid from funds appropriated for the pay of the Navy and pay of the Marine Corps, respectively: The records of the Navy Department show that Cornelius Joseph Vaughn was born on May 25, 1899. He enlisted in the Navy on October 9, 1920, and died on March 6, 1927. Vaughn named his mother as beneficiary to receive the six months' gratuity in the event of his death. However, her claim, amounting to $554.40, was disallowed by the Comptroller General on the grounds that she did not prove her dependency according to the act of June 4, 1920, supra. The Navy Department has no detailed information as to the degree of dependency which existed or as to the specific grounds upon which the Comptroller General found that Mrs. Vaughn was not dependent upon her son. The bill, H. R. 12548, was referred to the Bureau of the Budget with the above information as to cost and a statement that the Navy Department contemplated reporting the facts to the committee without recommendation. Under date of May 9, 1928, the Director of the Bureau of the Budget advised the Navy Department that the proposed report is not in conflict with the financial program of the President. In view of the foregoing, the Navy Department makes no recommendation on the bill, H. R. 12548. Sincerely yours, CURTIS D. WILBUR, STATEMENT OF HON. JAMES O'CONNOR, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF LOUISIANA Mr. BURDICK. Mr. O'Connor, who introduced this bill, is present and we will hear him first. Mr. O'CONNOR. I introduced this bill at the request of a number of people in my district who know the Vaughn family. I myself have no personal acquaintance with any of them; but I have been under the impression that Mrs. Vaughn was in poverty and that her dependency upon her late son, Cornelius, was beyond any question of doubt. It never occurred to me that any question in regard to dependency had been raised by the Comptroller General or anybody else. I would be glad if the committee should hear Commander Wilkinson on this subject. The Navy Department has thoroughly investigated the matter, no doubt. I have been assured by people in responsible positions of life who are interested in Mrs. Vaughn that she is practically without funds. The Vaughns are classed as poor, respectable people, and from my knowledge of the sort of people they are, I am certain that they do not count their money by hundreddollars bills. Will you please hear Commander Wilkinson at this time? STATEMENT OF COMMANDER THEODORE S. WILKINSON, UNITED STATES NAVY, BUREAU OF NAVIGATION Mr. BURDICK. Commander Wilkinson, what have you to say about this case? Commander WILKINSON. This is one of the so-called dependentmother cases, of which the committee has heard many. These cases usually hinge upon the fact that no beneficiary was named by the deceased. During the last session of Congress, as you know, a law was enacted permitting the payment of such gratuities after proof of dependency and relationship, in the absence of a statement as to beneficiary by the deceased. However, this is a separate case and that is why I mention it. In the Vaughn case the requirement of law that the deceased name a beneficiary was complied with. He designated his mother. The law in such cases, however, requires a showing of actual dependency, and the Navy Department is not in such cases empowered to make the final decision as to what constitutes dependency. The Comptroller General makes the decision upon the statements of facts furnished by the Navy Department. Since the decision in this case was made by the Comptroller General, the Navy Department has not made a recommendation on the bill. Mr. VINSON. After a man has designated a beneficiary, as required by the old law, the Comptroller General, after death of the man, has a right to determine whether or not there was an actual dependency-whether the statement of the deceased that the one he named as a beneficiary was in fact dependent upon him? Commander WILKINSON. In case a wife and child or children are left, they are legally dependent, of course. However, if anybody else is named as a beneficiary, the Comptroller General has the right to determine the question of dependency. Mr. VINSON. In the Cox case a beneficiary was named-a dependent was named-and the Comptroller declined to approve payment; but, as I remember, the court decided that he did not have that right. I think Cox also named his mother. Commander WILKINSON. There have been cases in the Court of Claims on account of pay held up on account of previous payments to dependents, such as mothers, but I do not think the construction of this act of June 4, 1920, has been challenged. The Navy Department decides the issue in cases under the new law of last session, where the beneficiary has not been named; but, under the old lawand this case comes under the old law-the Comptroller General made the decision. Mr. HALE. Under present law it is handled by the Navy Department. Commander WILKINSON. Yes, if no beneficiary has been named. If a beneficiary has been named, the Comptroller General decides it. Mr. VINSON. When the deceased has failed to name a beneficiary, somebody can make application for that gratuity and after a showing of actual dependency collect it-the Navy Department itself settles the question. Commander WILKINSON. Yes, sir. Mr. WILLIAMS. In one case the matter is settled by the Comptroller General and in the other case it is settled by the Navy Department. Commander WILKINSON. When the beneficiary is designated, in the absence of a statement that the Secretary of the Navy should do it, the case is handled by the Comptroller General. Mr. BURDICK. This is an emolument held out to the young man going into the Navy? Commander WILKINSON. Yes, sir. It is a form of insurance for the benefit of a dependent close relative. Vaughn was drowned while with a swimming party in Guantanamo Bay March 6, 1927, and his death was held to be in line of duty and not the result of his own misconduct. His mother made application for the gratuity on July 7, 1927, and the decision was rendered some little time later. The evidence furnished by the mother was intended to show that she was entirely dependent upon her deceased son at the time of his death. She made the statement that her husband was crippled and therefore unable to work. She said she had no means of support other than her deceased son and that he was her only unmarried child and the only one who contributed to her support. There is some evidence that Mrs. Vaughn had a married daughter. Mr. WILLIAMS. Was there evidence of support or just the evidence of existence of possible support? Commander WILKINSON. The Navy Department has evidence of the existence of a married daughter of Mrs. Vaughn. The Comptroller General found that the deceased sent his mother $40 a month; that she and her husband owned, in addition to their own home, a double cottage valued at $2,500, which was, however, covered by a mortgage of $1,500, which rented for $32 a month. The showing is that the interest on the mortgage and the expense of upkeep took most of the money derived from the rent. One other son contributed $25 a month. There is no evidence that the daughter made any contribution. Upon that statement of facts the Comptroller General made his decision, and the Navy Department is not questioning it. Mr. VINSON. I move that the bill be reported favorably to the full committee. Mr. HALE. I second the motion. Mr. BURDICK. In the absence of objection, it is so ordered. O A HEARING ON H. R. 10569, A BILL FOR THE RELIEF OF GILBERT P. CHASE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, SUBCOMMITTEE ON NAVAL AFFAIRS, Tuesday, January 8, 1929. The subcommittee this day met at 11.20 o'clock a. m., Hon. Clark Burdick, chairman, presiding. Mr. BURDICK. The next bill for consideration is H. R. 10569 for the relief of Gilbert P. Chase. The clerk will read the bill and the report thereon by the Navy Department. (The clerk read as follows:) [H. R. 10569, Seventieth Congress, first session] A BILL For the relief of Gilbert P. Chase Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the Secretary of the Treasury be, and he is hereby, authorized and directed to pay, out of any money in the Treasury not otherwise appropriated, and there is hereby appropriated for such payment, to Gilbert P. Chase, retired lieutenant commander United States Navy, the sum of $2,253.41, the difference in pay due him from July 1, 1922, to May 7, 1926, from the Navy Department. [No. 331] FOR THE RELIEF OF GILBERT P. CHASE H. R. 10569) The CHAIRMAN COMMITTEE ON NAVAL AFFAIRS, NAVY DEPARTMENT, Washington, March 24, 1928. House of Representatives, Washington, D. C. MY DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: Replying further to the committee's letter of February 10, 1928, transmitting the bill (H. R. 10569) for the relief of Gilbert P. Chase, and requesting the views and recommendations of the Navy Department thereon, I have the honor to advise you as follows: The purpose of this bill is to authorize and direct the Secretary of the Treasury to pay to Lieut. Commander Gilbert P. Chase, United States Navy, retired, the sum of $2,253.41, "the difference in pay due him from July 1, 1922, to May 7, 1926, from the Navy Department. The Navy Department has no information relative to any pay that may be due Lieutenant Commander Chase, United States Navy, retired, other than that contained in the bill H. R. 10569, and in the statement made in his letter of December 20, 1926, to Congressman Ackerman, quoted in the Navy Department's letter mentioned below. In this connection attention is invited to the inclosed copy of the Navy Department's letter of February 28, 1927, to the Hon. Ernest A. Ackerman, House of Representatives, commenting on Lieutenant Commander Chase's alleged claim. The bill H. R. 10569, if enacted, will result in expense to the Government of $2,253.61. The bill H. R. 10569 was referred to the Bureau of the Budget with the above information as to cost and a statement that the Navy Department contemplated making an unfavorable recommendation thereon. Under date of March 15, 1928, the Director of the Bureau of the Budget advised the Navy Department that (383) 2197-29-No. 53 |