The Washington times., 1935-03-06
CLAIMS COURT.
RULE CITED
IN ROW
Attorney Generals Opinion
: Quoted in Statement
BY Cabinet officer
international News Service

Secretary OF the Navy swanson
today challenged Comptroller Gen.
eral McCarl to showdown on the
question of whether the Navy has
the right to make allowances for
the travelling expenses of the de-
pendents of naval officers ordered
home to await retirement.
In bristling statement Of reply
TO letter from Mr.. McCarl hold
ing him directly responsible for
making these allowances, contrary
to the ruling of the Comptroller
Generals Office, Mr.. Swanson
said the Attorney General had ap-
proved the course followed by the
Navy.
Issues Statement
Secretary Swanson issued a
lengthy statement asking the ques-
ton:
DO the courts interpret the
law, or does the Comptroller
General?"
Mr.. Swanson said he could not
conduct his branch Of the Govern
ment business if there is a con-
slant difference of opinion as to
whether the Interpretation OF
laws by the courts shall or shall
not be followed" He declared the
matter should be clarified and
definitely settled for good bust
ness"
At his press conference, Mr..
Swanson said:
II want to make q statement
about the McCarI matter. have
only this statement to make and
will not answer any questions
about it.
"CriminatiOns and recriminA-
tiOnS between high officers Of
the Government are neither
conducive to good government
nor good business.
81 think that all matters OF
importance in the adminiStra-
tiOn of the government and buSi-
ness should be determined with
out either prejudice or passion.
LAW ENACTED
"The present controversy
which has been released to the
press commenced about IL years
ago when Congress passed legis-
latiOn in regard to travel allow
ances 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 Comptroller
General has held that this does
net constitute permanent
change of station within the
meaning of the law; Attorney
General Stone in 1924 and
numerous decisions of the Court
Of Claims have held to the con-
trary.
Last May it became neces.
Sary for the Secretary of the
Navy to issue instructions to
disbursing officers of the Navy
what course should be followed
in connection with such cases
Should the decision of the
Comptroller General interpret.
ing the basic law be followed
or should the law as interpreted
by the courts be followed.
II referred this matter to the
Attorney General for his Opin-
ion, as that officer is the chief
law officer of the Government
and is designated by law to
prosecute and defend litigation.
The Attorney General advised
me that the opinion of the At
tOrney General and the deci-
SiOnS of the court should be
followed.
"The real question at issue is
what agency is paramount in
the Interpretation of the law.
Do the courts interpret the law,
or does the Comptroller Gen.
eral?"
HUGE BUSINESS"
"The Government conducts a
huge business and it is OBJ
viOuSly necessary that it be
conducted along business lines.
This cannot be done if there
Is a constant difference of Opin-
ion as to whether the interpre-
tatiOn of laws by the courts
shall or shall not be followed.
81 think this mater should be
clarified and definitely settled
whether the Comptroller Gen
eral is the agency for the final
Interpretation of the law, or
whether the courts Of the
United States are. My only
effort is to conduct the busi-
ness Of this department in an
orderly, efficient, and business
like way"
At the same time Secretary
Swanson said he believed the
President may take a hand in
the squabble, or perhaps Congress
might act. He declined to say
wheather President Roosevelt had
yet voiced any views of the con-
flict.
AZ ~ DAMN 0AI mama