CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - HOUSE

four large wooden boxes delivered to the

United States High Commissioner to the

Philippines by the Philippine National

Bank in response to the Commissioner's

direction, in December 1941, that the

bank deliver to him "all cash reserves,

bullion, negotiable securities, and other

negotiable papers held by your bank, or held by you in trust for others." The

purpose of the directive was to prevent

such items from falling into the hands

of the enemy who, at that moment, was invading the islands. When the property

of these claimants was discovered, it was turned over to a representative of the

Philippine Government, who rejected

suggestions of United States Army officers that it be sent out on an American

submarine. Instead, he voluntarily

placed the property in a safe at Corregidor where it was confiscated by the

Japanese. From these facts it is apparent that the possibility of a valid

claim against the United States is very

remote.

More importantly, these claimants had

ample opportunity to present their

claims in a timely manner. Under the

applicable statute of limitations, they

had until December 1947-2 years after

the end of the war-to file suit in the

Court of Claims. They had 5 months

after the Treasury Department, on July

25, 1947, advised that there was no statute or appropriation permitting the

administrative settlement of such claims.

They waited, however, for 4 years, until

1951, before petitioning the Court of

Claims.

Nothing in the record justifies special

treatment for these claimants, particularly when it is remembered that many

others filed suit against the United

States in the Court of Claims for damages arising out of incidents in the

Philippines during the war years and

had their cases dismissed because of the

expiration of the statute of limitations.

DWIGHT D. EISENHOWER.

THE WHITE HOUSE, July 6, 1960.

On July 7, 1960:

SAM J. BUZZANCA

H.R. 6712. I am withholding my approval from H.R. 6712, a bill "For the re- lief of Sam J. Buzzanca."

Mr. Buzzanca, at a Federal tax sale

in 1954, purchased certain real estate

which had an estimated market value of

$21,000, but which was subject to a mortgage prior in time to the Federal

tax lien. It was announced at the tax

sale that principal and interest in the

amount of $8,320 was due under this

prior mortgage. The real estate was sold

to Mr. Buzzanca for $8,100-far less than

the amount of the Federal tax lien which

exceeded the market value of the property.

Two months later the holder of the

first mortgage, who also had acquired

whatever rights the heirs of the delinquent taxpayer and former owner had

in the property, successfully sued Mr.

Buzzanca to obtain possession of the

property. Although the United States was not a party to this action, the District Director for the area did render

informal assistance to Mr. Buzzanca.

On appeal, the Supreme Court of Alabama affirmed.

Mr. Buzzanca's claim for relief appears to rest on the contention that the

first mortgagee obtained a judgment for

possession of the property because the

tax sale to Mr. Buzzanca was defective

and did not convey to Mr. Buzzanca the

former owner's interest.

Internal Revenue Service records re- veal no defect in the seizure and sale.

This being so, Mr. Buzzanca has no ground for complaint against the United

States. Because the existence of the first

mortgage was made known at the time,

the tax sale did not purport to convey

rights superior to a valid first mortgage.

The United States cannot and does not

attempt to warrant or defend title to

property seized and sold under the internal revenue laws. No warranty is

available to a purchaser at a tax sale and a deed is not a warranty of the title con- veyed. The right, title, and interest con- veyed is derivative, and the purchaser

acquires only the interest of the delinquent taxpayer. To compel the United

States to warrant and defend the title to

all property sold by it for taxes would

be costly and inadvisable.

For these reasons I cannot, on the facts

at hand, approve this bill for it would

create a precedent that would encourage

dissatisfied purchasers at Federal tax

sales to ask Congress to underwrite their

losses and guarantee their titles.

Were Mr. Buzzanca, however, to adduce direct evidence establishing incontrovertibly that the tax deed in question

was defective, I would of course be willing to sign a similar bill subsequently

enacted.

DWIGHT D. EISENHOWER.

THE WHITE HOUSE, July 7, 1960.

On July 14, 1960:

MARGARET P. COPIN

H.R. 4546. I am withholding my approval from H.R. 4546, for the relief of

Margaret P. Copin.

This bill would direct that its beneficiary be credited with a 20-year service

period for purposes of civil service re- tirement annuity, payable commencing

October 1, 1959.

This claimant, during three periods

beginning in August 1920 and ending in

June 1949, was on the employment rolls

of the Treasury Department for a total

time of 20 years and 29 days. This included, however, 7 months and 21 days

of leave without pay in calendar year

1922. Her actual service therefore, totals

only 19 years, 5 months and 8 days.

Nevertheless, in computing Mrs. Copin's

length of service for retirement annuity

purposes, the normal rules of the law were applied; namely, free credit of 6

months of leave without pay taken in

1932 and exclusion of the excess amount.

Despite the credit of 6 months, the

claimant still lacks 22 days of the 20

years of creditable service which would

have given her the right to an immediate

reduced annuity beginning October 1,

1958, when disability annuity payments

theretofore received were terminated

pursuant to a finding that she was re- employable. Instead, her status is that

of a deferred annuitant, and retirement

annuity will not be payable until March

1, 1964, after she has attained 62 years

of age. The difference in the total value

of the two annuities, based on life ex- pectancy, is $4,200, which would be, in

effect, a gratuity from the Federal Government.

The record on H.R. 4546 discloses no valid justification for the favored posi- tion the bill would accord this claimant.

To confer such a preferential advantage on one individual participant in the re- tirement program would be highly discriminatory and contrary to the prin- ciples of fair play and equality of treatment which are basic to sound personnel administration.

DWIGHT D. EISENHOWER.

THE WHITE HOUSE, July 14, 1960.

On July 14,1960:

BERNALILLO COUNTY, N. MEX.

H.R. 11545. I am withholding my ap- proval from H.R. 11545, to amend the

act of October 31, 1949, with respect to

payments to Bernalillo County, N. Mex., for furnishing hospital care for certain

Indians.

A 1949 law authorized the Government to contribute $1,500,000 toward

construction of a hospital in Bernalillo

County upon Government donated land.

In return, the county must make available, when required, at least 100 beds for

the care of eligible Indians. Further,

the cost of caring for Indians admitted

to the hospital was to be paid by the

United States and, as an experiment, the

Government undertook to guarantee the

county a payment at least equal to the

cost of operating 80 percent of the beds

reserved for Indians irrespective of the

number actually hospitalized.

The minimum guaranty provision, pre- viously twice extended and now expired as of June 30, 1960, would be extended

for still another year under H.R. 11545.

Ordinarily in such cases the United

States pays for Indian care on the basis

of actual hospitalization. Accordingly, the Department of Health, Education,

and Welfare, in reporting to the Congress in 1957 pursuant to the original law, recommended that the experimental

80 percent minimum guaranty be per- mitted to expire. The Congress never- theless extended the guaranty provision

for another 3 years.

Funds for contract hospital care should

be available for expenditure wherever

the health needs of Indian patients so require, and no portion of them should

be mandatorily tied to a single contract

facility without regard to actual need or use. Moreover, because other Government service contracts for Indian care do

not include a minimum payment guaranty, it would be highly inequitable to

continue this provision solely for the

Bernalillo County Hospital.

Finally, the completion of other facilities now under construction will in all

likelihood reduce the number of Indian

patients at Bernalillo Hospital and the

bill would thus mean unnecessary ex- pense to the Government and without

any corresponding advantage, either to

the Government or to this program.

For these reasons, I am unable to approve this bill.

DWIGHT D. EISENHOWER.

THE WHITE HOUSE, July 14, 1960.

15846 July 2