CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - HOUSE August 20

son in 1947 at Schofield Barracks, Hawaii.

As a member of the Armed Forces, the

beneficiary's son had been convicted of

housebreaking by a court-martial, sentenced to 5 years' confinement, and

given a suspended dishonorable discharge. While confined in a post stockade he was shot and killed during an

abortive jailbreak. It was subsequently

determined that the decedent was not

involved in the attempted escape in any

way, and his death was declared to have

occurred in line of duty. On the basis

of this determination the beneficiary

was paid the usual 6 months' death

gratuity.

Earlier in his military career the beneficiary's son had taken out a $10,000 national service life insurance policy, designating his mother as beneficiary, and

paying the premiums on his policy by

allotments from his pay. However,

since he had forfeited all pay and allowances while in confinement his allotment

became ineffective, causing the policy to

lapse for lack of premium payment.

When the beneficiary made application

after her son's death for regular monthly

payments under the policy, the Veterans'

Administration made such payments to

her over a period of several years in an

aggregate amount of $4,324.50 before discovering that the policy had not actually

been in effect at the time of the son's

death. Under discretionary authority

which it possesses, the Veterans' Administration waived recovery of the amount

thus erroneously paid to the beneficiary

on the grounds that she had received it

in good faith and to require repayment

would work an undue hardship on her.

In this connection, it may be noted that

the award proposed by the present measure is based on the difference between

the aggregate amount of the erroneous

insurance payments and $5,000, the sum

deemed by the Congress to be a reasonable total payment in the light of the

circumstances of the case.

It appears that, even if she were dependent upon her son for support, which

she was not, the beneficiary is ineligible

for survivorship benefits under laws administered by the Veterans' Administration, because such benefits are denied in

cases in which the serviceman died while

in confinement, regardless of whether or

not his death was incurred in line of

duty.

The only question presented by this

case is whether its special facts warrant

the additional relief which the bill would

afford the beneficiary. It might be argued that such relief is warranted not

only because the beneficiary, apart from

the issue of dependency, is ineligible for

benefits under laws administered by the

Veterans' Administration even though

her son died in line of duty but also be- cause neither she nor her son was ever

specifically notified by the Veterans' Administration that this insurance had

lapsed. Even if such arguments were

valid, and I do not consider that they

are, I still believe that there would be

no justification for the award proposed

here. I believe that any equities which

might have existed in favor of the beneficiary were more than satisfied when

the Veterans' Administration waived recovery of the Insurance payments erroneously made to her.

DWIGHT D. EISENHOWER.

THE WHITE HOUSE, September 1, 1954.

RALEIGH HILL, H. R. 6529

H. R. 6529. I am withholding my approval from the bill, H. R. 6529, 83d

Congress, an act for the relief of Raleigh

Hill.

The bill would authorize and direct the

Administrator of Veterans' Affairs to

pay the proceeds of national service life

insurance of Walter H. Nichols, Jr., to

Raleigh Hill, uncle of the insured and

designated principal beneficiary of such

insurance.

National service life insurance in the

amount of $10,000 matured on April 8,

1945, the date of death in service of,

Walter H. Nichols, Jr. The Veterans'

Administration denied the claim of his

uncle, Raleigh Hill, the designated principal beneficiary, on the ground that he

did not stand in loco parentis to the insured and was therefore not within the

permitted classes of beneficiaries, a statutory requirement applicable to national

service life insurance maturing prior to

August 1, 1946. The correctness of the

Veterans' Administration determination

under the applicable law is not disputed.

Favorable action appears to have been

predicated on a belief that because the

restriction concerning the permitted

classes of beneficiaries has been removed

as to national service life insurance ma- turing on and after August 1, 1946, payment should be made to an ineligible

beneficiary in this case involving insurance which matured prior to August 1,

1946, and further, that the Government

failed to advise the insured properly concerning classes of eligible beneficiaries.

I am advised that the latter view is not

supported by the record. As to the former, a similar view was urged in support

of H. R. 3733, 83d Congress, which likewise proposed to pay an ineligible beneficiary the proceeds of a national service

life insurance policy. In my message of

February 23, 1954, returning the bill

without approval, I said that it seemed

to me irrelevant and unwise to accept as

justification for that bill the fact that

the ineligible beneficiary could at the

time of the message qualify as a beneficiary under existing law which was not

made retroactive. My view has not

changed and applies with equal force to

the present case. Furthermore, approval of H. R. 6529

would be discriminatory and precedential. I am advised that of the approximately 3,600 claims for the proceeds of

national service life insurance denied by

the Veterans' Administration because the

claimants were not within the classes of

beneficiaries permitted by law, it is estimated that a majority were cases similar to Mr. Hill's, where the claimants

had been designated as beneficiaries.

As stated on previous occasions, I am

opposed to setting aside the principles

and rules of administration prescribed

in the general law relating to veterans' benefit programs. Uniformity and

equality of treatment to all who are

similarly situated must be the steadfast

rule if the Federal programs for veterans

and their beneficiaries are to be operated

successfully. Approval of H. R. 6529

would not be in keeping with these principles.

DWIGHT D. EISENHOWER.

THE WHITE HOUSE, September 1, 1954.

CARL PIOWATY AND W. J. PIOWATY,

H. R. 1665

H. R. 1665. I have withheld my approval from H. R. 1665, for the relief of

Carl Piowaty and W. J. Piowaty.

This bill authorizes and directs the

Secretary of the Treasury to pay to Carl

Piowaty and W. J. Piowaty the sum of

$4,450 in full settlement of their claim

against the United States for war-crop

advances made to them by the Regional

Agricultural Credit Corporation prior to

April 16, 1943.

The claims of the United States

against these two persons and their

claims against the United States have

been adjudicated in the courts where

both sides were afforded an opportunity

to present all pertinent evidence on the

issues involved. The case was tried before a jury in the circuit court of Orange

County, Fla., on May 22 and 23, 1947, and

a judgment was obtained against both

Carl Piowaty and W. J. Piowaty for the

full amount they owed. They appealed

the verdict to the Supreme Court of

Florida where the lower court's judgment was sustained on February 13,

1948. Appeal for a rehearing was thereafter denied.

In 1950, W. J. Piowaty and his wife instituted an action in the circuit court of

Orange County, Fla., seeking a declaratory judgment relieving their real property from the lien of the judgment.

That suit was dismissed on motion of the

United States. In 1951, suit was filed

by the United States against Carl Piowaty, W. J. Piowaty, and the Globe Indemnity Co. on the bonds which were

posted when the appeal was taken to the

Supreme Court of Florida. Carl Piowaty and W. J. Piowaty filed an answer in that suit, but on motion for sum- mary judgment, judgment was rendered

against all the defendants in favor of

the United States on October 29, 1952.

In the light of this history of repeated

judicial review, I cannot agree that Carl

Piowaty and W. J. Piowaty should be

given the special consideration and relief which the bill would provide.

DWIGHT D. EISENHOWER.

THE WHITE HOUSE, September 2, 1954.

TRUST ASSOCIATION OF H. KEMPNER,

H. R. 951

H. R. 951. I have withheld my approval from H. R. 951, for the relief of

the Trust Association of H. Kempner.

This bill would provide an indirect

means for payment of approximately $1

million by the United States for certain peacetime commercial losses of the

Kempner Trust Association. To accomplish this purpose the bill would require

the Court of Claims to determine the

amount that the trust association lost

as a result of cotton sales made to certain private business firms in Germany

during 1923 and 1924. The bill would

then require that the Court of Claims determine how much of the property seized

during World War I by the United States

from a German firm wholly unconnected

15568