CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - HOUSE

The message also announced that the

President had, on August 15, 1953, disapproved bills of the House of the following

titles, together with his reasons for such

actions:

HAROLD JOE DAVIS-H. R. 1460

H. R. 1460. I am withholding my approval from H. R. 1460, for the relief of

Harold Joe Davis.

This measure would pay the sum of

$10,000 to Harold Joe Davis, of Tulsa,

Okla., as compensation for alleged permanent disability growing out of injuries

sustained in a Japanese bombing attack

at Dutch Harbor, Alaska, in 1942.

There is conflicting evidence regarding the facts in this case. It is undisputed, however, that the claimant was

fire chief at the Navy's installation at

Dutch Harbor, when it was bombed by

the Japanese in 1942 and that, as a

result of this bombing, he was injured

while in the performance of his duties.

It is not entirely clear whether the

claimant was an employee of a Government contractor at the time of his injury or whether he may not have been a

de facto employee of the United States.

Nor is it clear just what the nature and

extent of his injuries were nor to what

extent they were responsible for his

present condition.

Either as an overseas employee of a

Government contractor or as an employee of the United States, the claimant was entitled to periodic disability

compensation under laws administered

by the Bureau of Employees' Compensation if he sustained a compensable disability in the course of his employment.

However, for reasons unknown, he did

not file a claim with that Bureau until

some 7 years after the bombing injuries

were incurred, a time interval well beyond the statutory period within which

such claims had to be filed. His claim

was subsequently rejected not only for

failure to file timely, but also because, on

the basis of hearings on the merits, it

was determined that no present disability existed as a result of the 1942

injuries.

I find no justification for this proposed award. In amount, it bears no

relation to any indicated measure of

damages. It constitutes a method of

payment which is at variance with the

periodic compensation benefits provided

by existing law. Its sole justification

seems to be that the claimant is unable

to meet the substantive and procedural

requirements of compensation statutes

of general applicability.

In view of the conflicting evidence in

the case, however, I believe that the

claimant should be afforded the opportunity to advance any additional evidence he may have in support of his

claim. I would, therefore, be willing

to approve a bill which would permit a

determination of the claimant's employment status at the time of his injuries

and which would then permit him, notwithstanding any statute of limitations,

to file a claim under the law applicable

to that status. In this way the claim

will be processed under accepted procedures, fair to both the individual and

the Government. In my opinion, such

a bill gives the fullest possible recognition to the equities in favor of the

claimant and should be productive of a

result in keeping with the degree of disability he so unfortunately sustained as

a result of his war injuries.

DWIGHT D. EISENHOWER.

THE WHITE HOUSE OFFICE,

LOWRY AIR FORCE BASE,

DENVER, COLO.,

August 15, 1953.

COL. HARRY F. CUNNINGHAM-H. R. 2158

H. R. 2158. I am withholding my approval from H. R. 2158, for the relief of

Col. Harry F. Cunningham.

This measure directs the payment out

of seized German assets now under the

control of the United States of the sum

of $12,500 to Col. Harry F. Cunningham, of Lincoln, Nebr., as compensation

for architectural services rendered the

former Germai. Government prior to

World War II.

In the late 1930's the claimant was

retained by the former German Government as the architect for an embassy

which it was proposing to build in Washington. After rendering fairly extensive services, the claimant disassociated

himself from the project when he found

himself at odds with the military policies Germany was then following. The

outbreak of hostilities a short time later

resulted in the complete abandonment

of the project and the embassy has never

been built.

Subsequently, the claimant filed alternative claims with the Department of

Justice under the Trading With the

Enemy Act, the statute which governs

the distribution to various claimants of

the assets of the German Government

and of German nationals which were

seized at the beginning of World War

II. He desired relief in the alternative

either on the basis of a lien against specific real property owned by the German

Government in the District of Columbia or on the basis of an ordinary debt

owing for services rendered. The lien

basis for the claim was rejected because

a lien could not legally -be asserted

against governmental property and because the claimant's services never resulted in specific improvements to the

property in question, ordinarily a condition precedent to the assertion of a valid

lien. However, a claim based on the existence of a debt for personal services

rendered is now pending before the Department of Justice, and, although no final determination can be made until

processing of related claims under the

Trading With the Enemy Act has been

accomplished, it appears that the claimant will ultimately have his debt claim

approved in such amount as is found

to be owing to him.

This case has one major issue, revolving around the question of whether the

facts and circumstances warrant the

special treatment proposed for this

claimant. In my opinion they do not.

The claimant has an acknowledged claim

under the Trading With the Enemy Act.

The provisions of that act were designed

to provide orderly and equitable procedures for the distribution of vested

enemy property. I do not believe these

procedures should be ignored merely because it can be shown that proceeds in

excess of the amount of the present

claim have been realized from the sale

of a portion of the land formerly owned

by the German Government on which

the embassy was to have been built.

There are thousands of other debt

claims equal or higher in priority to

Colonel Cunningham's. At present there

can be no assurance that the ultimate

realization on vested German property

will permit these to be paid at full value.

It would clearly be discriminatory to

place this claim in a preferred position.

Furthermore, I cannot subscribe to

the view that the bill should be approved because such action will provide

for prompt settlement of an acknowledged claim. All claimants would like

to have prompt settlements. No valid reason is given for preferring this claimant ahead of all others. To set aside the

procedures prescribed by general law

would lead other claimants to seek special legislation to speed the settlement

of their claims. To my mind, this is one

of the exact contingencies that the

Trading With the Enemy Act was designed for.

DWIGHT D. EISENHOWER.

THE WHITE HOUSE OFFICE,

LOWRY AIR FORCE BASE,

DENVER, COLO.,

August 15, 1953.

CITY AND COUNTY OF DENVER, COLO.-H. R. 2750

H. R. 2750. I have withheld my approval from H. R. 2750, for the relief of

the city and county of Denver, Colo.

This bill would authorize a payment

of $4,741.72 to the city and county of

Denver, on account of street improvements in front of property of the United

States adjoining Lowry Air Force Base.

This represents the amount that would

have been assessable against the property if it were privately owned.

Considered simply in terms of the

specific facts, the claim for payment

seems equitable. The Department of

the Air Force has stated that the improvements "are definitely beneficial

and desirable to the community and to

the adjacent Federal property." Since

there is no legal authority under which

the Department can make payment,

special private legislation is the only

avenue of relief presently available.

But the claim covered in this bill is

not unique, nor are the facts so peculiar

and local that approval would set no

precedent. On the contrary, there are

indications that if the bill is approved

other communities may be expected to

press similar-and perhaps equally meritorious-claims to payment for local

-improvements adjacent to Federal real

property.

A long-established principle of law

and policy in our Federal system of goV11162 August 3