Perth Amboy evening news., 1919-01-31
Interesting Features in Debate
on Morgan Explosion Claims
Continued from page II

IL 80 ~ VI hlit HOAAAL vi vi
/ desire to say that only today wal
the document, No. 1875. referred TO il
the amendment available to member!
of the House. When this proposition
was presented as an addendum to tn,
bill as reported by the subcommittee
i do not believe any member of thu
general committee had II concep
ton nat the total amount OF claims
would run into the millions of dollars
Certainly / did not. The report show!
that the grand total, as stated OF
page 5, covered by this report. is SO,
1880. 1t is true that, beginning OF
page s and running back to page CT
there are a large number of small
claims. / suppo a~ggregating severa
thousand dollars, for damages to win.
dow glass and paint and the like
where / notice that the commission
consisting of a colonel of the Ord
nance Department and n major of the
Ordnance Department and a civilian,
reported virtually in full for the
claims as presented. In the report
they said that the amoun is about 10
per cent. less than the total face
value of the claims / am surprised
that on q mere inspection perhaps 80
per cen or even 80 per cent. of all
these claims havo been allowed. !
car not think that this board OF three
went into the adjudication of the
merits OF the claims very closely.
Mr.. Sherley. Mr.. Chairman, I think
the gentleman is drawing a conclu-
sion that is not entirely warranted.
There are a great many instances in
which these people did not present 4
formal claim in dollars and cents, but
simply made a claim for damages
done to their houses; and this board
then Investigated the matter and un-
dertook to ascertain the extent OF the
damage. and | gather the impression
on the testimony before the commit
tee. as well as the reports previous TO
this that were filed, that this board
had functioned Npretty intelligently
and pretty conservatively.
Mr.. Stafford. Well. IL the gentleman
would examine the report closely he
would see that line out of ten OF the
claims presented .yXGre allowed at the
very G.aHun' presented. For IN
-a1-.so. I Just read at rakmaly. Take
the very first claim, thaS--iseofge
Horley. The claim is for S5.35 and
the mount allowed is $5.35. Take
the next claim, $lS.73; amount allow
ed $1S.7S. Take the next. S71.21:
amount allowed, $71.2i. Take the
next. S514.06; amount allowed, $514.-
06. And right on down the allow
ance OF these claims is the amount
as presented.
MIR. SHERLEY. II the gentleman
will permit. If he will look at the
&AAt& AA1tA ia NAA1 ~ ~ - y h@S
they are matters about whtch there
need be no dispute. The question OF
the value of the glass of Il window
that has to be replaced is one easily
ascertainable. Now, the testimony of
these men was that they had their
own experts to examine into the dam
- and estimate the cost OF restora-
On. and that they have taken every
proper method OF checking up those
expenditures; but here are "A lot OF
little claims. such as the gentleman
has indicated. Now. / think my rec
ord In this House is that of one not
to be swept Off his feet in the desire
to pay claims. because | have appre-
ciated how frequently the Government
was liable TO be imposed upon: but
here are dozens of people. poor peo-
ple-literally poor people-people who
have to live from day to day. with
Claims running from 50 to SIS or 500
end so forth. 1t seems to me that the
government having its own agency.
having created n board for the deter
mination OF these claims. can afford
10 appropriate the money without
holding the claims up to a time when
probably IL will mean nothing to the
recipients thereof.
MIR. STAFFORD. I quite agree
with the gentleman that these claims
should be disposed of. but l was quite
surprised on an inspection of this
document AS there reported, that In
so many they allowed q
claim on its face value. But l rose
more to inspect the language OF the
amendment as II Is prepared to see
that IL would not involve the Govern
ment in recognizing claims as carried
in this report OF which there may be
some question and as to where there
IS an obligation on h part of the
Government, as. for instance. the
DanuxIxrD nfa RntIrAnI fhn Contra
Railroad of New Jersey and those
very large claims running into humid
reds of thousands OF dollars. Ii may
be a question whether the Govern
ment should reimburse these corpor-
ations, for the reason that they carry
II am not misinformed. an Insurance
fund TO mbnr them against the
very character of losses such as are
sought to be r-ecompensed by this bill.
As 1 understand the report Of this
board OF two Army officers and one
civilian. and they say on page ? OF
the report. they do not in n In
stance allow any claim which was
covered by insurance.
L read from the report.
This is in all cases the amount OF
loss less any insurance received
thereon.
As | stated a m ago. l did not
wish to have this p~hraseology in any
wise a recognition of any obligation
on the part OF the government 10 pay
these large claims which run up into
hundreds OF thousands OF dollars. For
instance. the Pennsylvania Railroad
Co. has a claim for $4,000 here,
though We only appropriate the total
amount as carried for these small
claims
The Chairman. The time OF the
gentleman has expired.
Mr.. Stafford. l ask for three min
utes more.
The Chairman. Is there objection
20 the request Of the gentleman
Garter a pause.) The Chair hear:
none.
Mr.. Stafford. I was wondering
whether the phraseology would recog
nize the obligation 10 pay any OF these
large claims.
Mr. Sherley IL was not SO intend
ed. IL was FOR the very purpose %
avoiding the paving of any claim ths
might he OF doubtful validity that this
committee did not carry the provisioF