Evening star., 1935-03-06
NAW-M'C CARL ROW
UP TOPRES|DENT"
Swanson Thinks Roosevelt
Will Take Hand in Travel
Allowance.

Secretary Swanson predicted today
that President Roosevelt would inter-
vene In the controversy between the
Navy Department and Controller Gen.
eral McCarl.
Swanson said at o press conference
the issue was simply whether "the
courts or McCarl'' should determine
payment of travel expenses OF de-
pendents of officers ordered home for
retirement.
He added that, although he had not
discussed the controversy with the
President, II reckon he'll take 1t up
himself" He said the issue might be
settled by Congress, an executive
order, or by q court order.
McCarl made public Monday letter
to Swanson severely criticizing the
Secretarys order that the expenses be
paid. McCarl held they were i'm
Attorney General Cummings uphold
ing them was merely advisory His
department. he said, should be the
Judge of whether appropriations were
being expended legally.
Swanson acknowledged that his order,
issued in January, had not yet been
made effective, and declined to say
whether an attempt would be made
to make the payments pending settle
ment Of the issue.
In q formal statement, Swanson de-
clared such payments had been up
held by former Attorney General
Stone in 1924 and numerous deci-
sions o: the Court of Claims"
The Secretary hinted that the Navy
might seek q mandamus from the
courts to compel Controller General
McCarl to o. k. the accounts Of the
naval disbursing officers.
SwanSon'S statement follows:
examinations and recriminations
between high officers of the Govern
ment are neither conducive to good
government or good business.
Il think that all matters of i'm
portance in the administration Of the
Government and business should be
determined without either prejudice
or passion.
Began IL Years Ago.
"The present controversy. which
has been released to the press, COM
menced about IL years ago, when
Congress passed legislation in regard
to travel allowances of dependents
of officers and men of the Army and
Navy ordered to make a permanent
change of station. In the case of
retired officers ordered home to await
orders, the controller general has held
that this does not constitute a per-
manent change of station within the
meaning of the law; Attorney Gen.
eral Stone in 1924 and numerous de-
cisions of the Court Of Claims have
held to the contrary
Last May it became necessary to
issue instructions to disbursing officers
of the Navy what course should be
followed in connection with such
cases-should the decisions of the
controller general interpreting the
basic law be followed or should the
law as interpreted by the courts be
followed.
Il referred this matter to the At
torney General for his opinion. as
that ofhcer Is the chief law officer of
the Government and Is designated by
law to prosecute and defend litigation.
The Attorney General advised me
the opinion Of the Attorney General
and the decisions of the courts should
be followed.
Paramount Agency Question.
"The real question at issue is what
agency is paramount in the interpre-
tation of law. Do the courts inter-
pret the law or does the Controller
General?
THE Government conducts a huge
business and it is obviously necessary
that 1t be conducted along business
lines. This cannot be done If there
Is a constant difference of opinion as
to whether the Interpretation by the
courts shall or shall not be followed
Il think this matter should be clari-
fed and definitely Settled-whether
the Controller General is the agency
for the final Interpretation of the law
or whether the courts of the United
States are. My only effort is to con-
duct the business of this department
In an orderly, efficient and business
like way"
Meanwhile. it was reported that the
Navy can circumvent McCarl's ruling
barring the payment of travel allow
ances to dependents of officers ordered
to their homes for retirement by order
ing these officers to a nearby naval
station, waiting short while, and
then retiring them When an offlcer
Is travelling under official orders to a
new station Uncle Sam pays the way
for his dependents.
Even under the present set-up.
when officers serving outside the
United States are ordered to their
homes for retirement the Government
pays the transportation for their de-
pendents. The crux of the present
controversy is that dependents of Of
ficers stationed in the United States
are deprived of travel allowance.