On August 31, 1923, the Comptroller General of the United States held that Conway's transfer to the Fleet Naval Reserve was illegal and that payment of retainer pay made to him would not be passed by the General Accounting Office. On November 15, 1924, the Secretary of the Navy requested the Comptroller General to reconsider his decision of August 31, 1923, in the case of Conway and in such request stated that in the opinion of the department, based on an opinion of the Attorney General of July 17, 1924, "Conway is a bona fide member of the Fleet Naval Reserve and entitled to retainer pay." The Comptroller General in decision of November 24, 1924, held that Conway did not appear to be legally transferred or to come within the opinion of the Attorney General and that he was therefore not entitled to receive retainer pay as a member of the Fleet Naval Reserve.

An opinion was then obtained from the Attorney General in the specific case of Conway and on February 13, 1925, a copy of this opinion was forwarded to the Comptroller General. The comptroller upon receipt of this opinion rendered his third decision in the Conway case, of March 17, 1925, review No. 4285, reconsidered, and took issue with the Attorney General, deciding that Conway was illegally transferred to the Fleet Naval Reserve.

On April 1, 1925, the Secretary of the Navy issued specific orders to Captain Seibels to pay Conway retainer pay on and after July 10, 1922, the date of his transfer to the Fleet Naval Reserve. The case was again referred to the Comptroller General by the Secretary of the Navy on April 29, 1925, and on August 19, 1925, the comptroller rendered another decision holding that Conway was not legally transferred to the Fleet Naval Reserve.

On December 3, 1925, Captain Seibels requested the Comptroller General to remove the disallowances in his accounts because of payments of retainer pay made to Conway because such payments were made under direct orders of the Secretary of the Navy, in accordance with section 285 of the Revised Statutes. In decision of April 15, 1926, the comptroller refused to remove disallowances in the accounts of Captain Seibels.

Attention is invited to the fact that this bill H. R. 16887 provides for the relief of Capt. George S. Seibels, Supply Corps, United States Navy. It should be amended to read:

For the relief of Captain George G. Seibels, Supply Corps, United States Navy. Mr. BURDICK. The captain paid this money under direct orders of the Secretary of the Navy?

Admiral MORRIS. He did, in accordance with section 285 of the Revised Statutes. He protested to the Secretary of the Navy against this payment.

Mr. HALE. By reason of the disallowance, no doubt?

Admiral MORRIS. Yes. The amount was charged against his accounts and the Secretary himself directed that the payments be made.

Mr. BURDICK. The Attorney General had advised the Secretary of the Navy that the payment should be made in accordance with law? Admiral MORRIS. Yes, sir.

Mr. BURDICK. But the Comptroller General on three or four different occasions disallowed the payment?

Admiral MORRIS. Yes.

Mr. BURDICK. In other words, this officer, a paymaster, made these payments under direct orders of the Secretary of the Navy, who was his superior?

Admiral Morris. Yes. There were two cases similar to this. Captain Seibels was relieved by other disbursing officers, who in turn protests against payment of this account and they also received orders from the Secretary of the Navy to make the payments.

The Comptroller General in his letter of August 1, 1928, to the committee recommends that authorization be given for this transfer of Conway, otherwise the payments to Conway will continue to be suspended. The comptroller is disallowing all these payments. The department has considered an improvement to the suggestion of the comptroller by offering an amendment to read as follows: "That the transfer of Aviation Chief Machinist's Mate Willie Perry Conway, United States Navy, to the Fleet Naval Reserve, on July 10, 1922, shall be conclusive for all purposes as to his status on and after said date."

Mr. BURDICK. We have not that matter before us to-day. All we want to consider now is this proposed relief for Captain Seibels. Admiral MORRIS. It and two other such bills.

Mr. BURDICK. The Navy Department has seen fit to split these cases up into private bills, and what we have now is H. R. 16887. Mr. VINSON. I move that it be favorable reported.

Mr. DRANE. I second the motion.

Mr. BURDICK. In the absence of objection, it is so ordered.

A HEARING ON THE
CAPT. CHESTER G.
NAVY

BILL (H. R. 16888) FOR THE RELIEF OF
MAYO, SUPPLY CORPS, UNITED STATES

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,
SUBCOMMITTEE ON NAVAL AFFAIRS,

Monday, February 11, 1929.

The subcommittee this day met at 11 o'clock a. m., Hon. Clark Burdick (chairman) presiding.

Mr. BURDICK. The next bill for consideration is H. R. 16888. for the relief of Capt. Chester C. Mayo, Supply Corps, United States Navy. The bill in question reads as follows:

[H. R. 16888, Seventieth Congress, second session]

A BILL For the relief of Capt. Chester G. Mayo, Supply Corps, United States Navy

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the General Accounting Office is hereby authorized and directed to credit the accounts of Captain Chester G. Mayo, Supply Corps, United States Navy, in the amount of $2,994.38, which sum represents the aggregate of payments made by said officer on voucher numbered 8419 for $2,400 paid February 23, 1922, under department contract numbered 3069 (Yards and Docks numbered 4301); on voucher numbered 3334 for $164 paid March 3, 1922; on voucher numbered 162 for $3 paid September 5, 1922; on voucher numbered 5182 for $275 paid July 3, 1922; on voucher numbered 3820 for $15 paid August 11, 1920; and on voucher numbered 4708 for $137.38 paid August 28, 1922, which payments were subsequently disallowed by the Comptroller General.

STATEMENT OF REAR ADMIRAL CHARLES MORRIS, SUPPLY CORPS, U. S. NAVY, CHIEF OF THE BUREAU OF SUPPLIES AND ACCOUNTS

Mr. BURDICK. Let us hear the explanation of this bill.

Admiral MORRIS. The sum of $2,400 was disallowed by the General Accounting Office from a payment made by Captain Mayo February 23, 1922, under voucher 8419, contract 3069.

This contract was awarded to the Boyle Robertson Construction Co., of Washington, D. C., and provided for building railroad-track extensions and foundation for radial brick chimneys at the Naval Research Laboratory, Bellevue, D. C.

Paragraph 12 of the contract, under extension of time, provides that

The failure or neglect of the contractor to submit his claim for extension of time within 30 days after the happening of the cause or causes upon which his claim is predicated shall be deemed and construed as a waiver of all claims and right to an extension of time for the completion of the work on account of alleged delay, and the contractor agrees to accept the finding and action of the Navy Department, Bureau of Yards and Docks in the premises as conclusive and binding.

Extensions of time were granted by the Bureau of Yards and Docks in letter of February 23, 1922, for a period of 179 days. Of this time

all delay was due to causes for which the Government was responsible, except 16 days which were due to a stonecutters' strike.

The General Accounting Office first suspended $28,500 against this voucher for a statement giving inclusive dates for the causes enumerated in Yards and Docks letter of February 23, 1922, and for evidence that the contractor submitted claim for extension of time within 30 days after the happening of the causes on which the contractor's claim was predicated.

As all the causes of delay for which time extensions were granted, except the 16 days due to the strike, were causes for which the Government was responsible, the contractor was not requested to submit a request for time extension (Comptroller General's decision of July 9, 1923).

The records of the Bureau of Yards and Docks fail to show that the contractor requested extension of time for this cause as required by paragraph 12.

The $2,400 suspended against this voucher represents liquidated damages for 16 days at $150 a day.

I would like to point out that the total extensions in this contract amounted to 179 days. The contract did require that in order to be relieved of that the contractor should request within 30 days an extension. There was a period of 16 days when he failed to do this, and it is on that technicality that the payment was disallowed by the Comptroller General.

Mr. BURDICK. Is this a similar case to what we have had? Did this captain make payments under orders from his superior? Admiral MORRIS. He did.

Mr. WILLIAMS. The time was extended?

Admiral MORRIS. Yes; the time was extended.

Mr. WILLIAMS. The only point is that the contractor failed to request the time extension amounting to 16 days?

Admiral MORRIS. Yes.

Mr. BURDICK. I am more interested in the fact that this officer was directed by his superior to make payment.

Admiral MORRIS. That is true.

Mr. BURDICK. And the Comptroller General overruled the Secretary of the Navy and this amount was therefore charged against the paymaster?

Admiral MORRIS. Yes.

Mr. HALE. Was there any damage sustained by the Government on account of this delay of 16 days?

Admiral MORRIS. No.

Mr. HALE. I move a favorable report on that item.

Mr. DRANE. I second the motion.

Mr. BURDICK. In the absence of objection, is is so ordered.
Next is the item of $164.

Admiral MORRIS. Voucher 3334, paid March 3, 1922, amount $164, to Earl Aiken Pound, as reimbursement for medical expense incurred by him while a member of the United States Naval Reserve Force. This amount was disallowed by the General Accounting Office as

information received from the Bureau of Navigation shows that Pound enrolled in the United States Naval Reserve Force May 23, 1918, and was disenrolled June 1, 1920, never having been called to active duty.