CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - HOUSE

tential inflationary effect upon the economy or that is so discriminatory. There

is no justifiable reason for making loans

at interest rates below the current mar- ket available to some veterans and denying them to others.

Help to veterans in the field of housing can be met most effectively with programs available to all our citizens, vet- erans and nonveterans alike, through

the coordinated activities of the Housing and Home Finance Agency. The re- cent liberalization of loan terms under

the PHA mortgage-insurance program

should make this program available to a far wider segment of the population, thus

stimulating private home-building activity to meet the growing needs.

It is my considered judgment that the

above-mentioned deficiencies of H. R.

4602 are of a magnitude and importance

which preclude my approval of the bill.

DWIGHT D. EISENHOWER.

THE WHITE HOUSE, September 2, 1957.

MR. AND MRS. C. H. PAGE

H. R. 1315: I have withheld my approval from H. R. 1315, a bill for the re- lief of Mr. and Mrs. Charles H. Page.

H. R. 1315 would pay the sum of $14,-

430.88 to Mr. and Mrs. Charles H. Page in

connection with the wrongful death of

their son who was a member of the

Armed Forces.

On the night of July 4, 1954, the decedent, Pfc. Charles H. Page, Jr., was

a member of a motorized patrol at Killeen Army Base, Killeen, Tex. As the

patrol approached a classified area after

dark it was properly halted and challenged by a posted walking sentry. The

decedent identified the patrol, whereupon the sentry requested that the dome

light inside the vehicle be turned on. The patrol had twice passed the same sentry earlier that evening after the fall

of darkness and had been allowed to proceed after the sentry had been informed

that the light did not work. But, this

time, on again being informed that the

light did not work, the sentry directed

the decedent to dismount and be recog- nized. The latter refused, calling out

to inquire if the sentry did not recognize

his voice and, at the same time, directing

the driver of the vehicle to proceed. The

sentry ordered the vehicle to halt and

then fired, fatally wounding the decedent.

The decedent was survived by his parents who are the beneficiaries of this bill.

The parents were paid a death gratuity

of $569.22 and are currently in receipt

of monthly benefits from the decedent's

free $10,000 indemnity. In addition,

upon a showing of dependency, they

could qualify for regular monthly payments under the Social Security Act and

under laws administered by the Veterans' Administration. The award proposed in H. R. 1315 is additive to the foregoing benefits.

I cannot see my way clear to approve

this bill. The Federal Government has

provided a costly, comprehensive, and

orderly system of benefits for survivors

of members of the Armed Forces who die

in service. As long as the death is serv- ice connected, these benefits are payable

regardless of the cause, whether it be in

combat or as the result of a tragic Incident like the present one. As I have previously noted, the parents here have already received, and presently are continuing to receive, substantial benefits on

account of their son's death. On a

showing of dependency they could qualify for additional benefits.

H. R. 1315 would add to the benefits,

to which the parents have heretofore or

may hereafter become entitled, a further

award in the amount of $14,430.88. To

make such an award in this case would

establish a most undesirable precedent

with respect tc other cases involving

service-connected deaths. If this bill

were approved, it would be difficult to

deny similar awards to the survivors of

other servicemen who die under a wide

variety of circumstances. To follow such

a course would, in my opinion, jeopardize

the entire structure of benefits which

has been built up for the protection of

servicemen's survivors.

I am constrained, therefore, to withhold my approval from H. R. 1315.

DWIGHT D. EISENHOWER.

THE WHITE HOUSE, September 7, 1957.

Mas. HANNAH MAE POWELL

H. R. 1419: I have withheld my approval of H. R. 1419 entitled "An act for

the relief of Mrs. Hannah Mae Powell."

The bill would authorize and direct the

Secretary of the Treasury to pay, out of

any money in the Treasury not otherwise

appropriated, to Mrs. Hannah Mae Powell, 1950 East Lehigh Avenue, Philadelphia, Pa., the sum of $11,197.95 in full

settlement of all claims of said Mrs.

Hannah Mae Powell for refund of excise

taxes and other expenses sustained as a

result of the actions of the collector of

internal revenue of Philadelphia, Pa., in

the years 1937, 1941, and 1942.

An examination by the Treasury Department of the facts in this case discloses that Mrs. Hannah Mae Powell has

recovered by court action all taxes assessed and collected from her which

were in dispute-plus interest-except

$464.76 which was barred by the expiration of the statutory period of limitations. These taxes which were in dispute were manufacturers' excise taxes.

After a recovery of the taxes, Mrs.

Hannah Mae Powell instituted a damage suit against the former collector,

both individually and as collector of

internal revenue of Philadelphia, Pa.

The district court rendered a judgment

in favor of the former collector and denied damages to Mrs. Hannah Mae Powell. This judgment was later upheld by

the court of appeals.

The bill, therefore, would give to Mrs.

Hannah Mae Powell the sum of $11,-

197.95 as damages which were denied to

her by the Federal district court and the

court of appeals. The court of appeals

in affirming the decision of the lower

court stated (Powell v. Rothensies (C. A.

3d, 1950), 183 F. 2d 774, 775):

The evidence offered by the plaintiff herself conclusively establishes that at the time

of the levy and seizure in question there

were outstanding In the hands of the defendant 2 unpaid assessments against the

plaintiff for manufacturer's excise taxes and

that the warrant for distraint under which

the levy and seizure were made was expressly based upon these 2 outstanding

assessments, which with Interest and penalty then amounted to $4,718.44. Under

these circumstances it was within the scope

of the defendant's ministerial duty to make

the levy and collection here in controversy

and he cannot be held answerable in damages for so doing. The trial judge, therefore, rightly directed a verdict for the defendant.

It would thus appear that the damages sustained by Mrs. Powell resulted

from her failure to satisfy two unpaid

assessments and that, in collecting the

unpaid assessments, the former collector of internal revenue was acting

within the scope of his ministerial duties.

H. 1H. 1419 would have a discriminatory effect, as it would afford to Mrs.

Powell relief which had been denied her

by the Federal Courts and which would

be denied all others in similar circumstances who do not have the benefit of

special legislation. Furthermore, H. R.

1419 would create an undesirable precedent by allowing damages to be collected

from the United States under these circumstances.

Under the circumstances, therefore, I

am constrained to withhold my approval of the bill.

DWIGHT D. EISENHOWER.

THE WHITE HOUSE, September 7, 1957.

PACIFIC CUSToMs BROKERAGE Co.

H. R. 1591: I am withholding approval

of H. R. 1591, a bill for the relief of the

Pacific Customs Brokerage Co., of Detroit, Mich.

The proposed legislation would provide

for the payment of $29,502.55 to the beneficiary in full settlement of all claims

against the United States arising out of

an erroneous classification of baler twine

which was imported at Detroit, Mich.,

between May 5, 1950, and February 16,

1951. The collector of customs liquidated these entries at the rate of 15

percent ad valorem, the rate applicable

under paragraph 1005 (b) of the Tariff

Act of 1930, as modified, in accordance

with established and uniform practice

for merchandise of this type. The importer failed to protest this ruling within

60 days after liquidation of the entry.

About a year after the entries had

been liquidated, the Customs Court, in

connection with the importation made

by another importer, decided that similar merchandise was entitled to entry

free of duty under paragraph 1622 of the

Tariff Act. This decision was later affirmed by the Court of Customs and Patent Appeals. This interpretation of the

law had no effect on the classification of

the merchandise in H. R. 1591, since that

duty determination had been made and

had become final and binding.

The Congress has established a regular procedure for importers to contest

the rate of duty and obtain a judicial determination by the Customs Court of the

correct rate. This judicial review is obtained by filing a protest to the collector's decision within 60 days after it is

made. No protest was filed by the Pacific Customs Brokerage Co. The Congress, in section 514 of the Tariff Act, has

provided that if such a protest is not

made within 60 days, the decision of the

collector is final and conclusive upon the

1957 16785