Source: https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/366/643/
Timestamp: 2019-04-21 14:32:24+00:00

Document:
An Oregon resident died in a United States Veterans' Administration Hospital in Oregon without a will or legal heirs, leaving a net estate of personal property. He had not entered into a contract with the United States concerning such property, and was mentally incompetent to do so. Oregon claimed such property under its escheat law, and the United States claimed it under 38 U.S.C. (1952 ed.) § 17, which provides that, when a veteran dies in such a hospital without a will or legal heirs, his personal property "shall immediately vest in and become the property of the United States as trustee for the sole use and benefit of the General Post Fund."
Held: the United States was entitled to the property as such trustee. Pp. 366 U. S. 643-649.
(a) The federal statute operates automatically, and does not require that the veteran shall have entered into a contract with the United States. Pp. 366 U. S. 645-648.
(b) The statute is within the power of Congress, and it does not violate the Tenth Amendment. Pp. 366 U. S. 648-649.
222 Ore. 40, 352 P. 2d 539, reversed.
that such property shall escheat to the State. [Footnote 1] A United States statute, on the other hand, provides that, when a veteran dies without a will or legal heirs in a veterans' hospital, his personal property "shall immediately vest in and become the property of the United States as trustee for the sole use and benefit of the General Post Fund. . . ." [Footnote 2] In reliance upon these provisions of their respective statutes, both the State of Oregon and the Government of the United States filed claims for Warpouske's estate in the Oregon probate court having jurisdiction of the matter.
Recognizing that the federal statute, if applicable and valid, would make the claim of the United States paramount, the State attacked the Government's reliance upon that statute on two grounds: first, it urged that the federal statute did not apply to this case on the theory that its provisions depended upon the Government's having made a valid contract with the veteran prior to his death, and that Warpouske had made no such contract because he had been mentally incompetent to do so when he entered the hospital and at all times thereafter up to his death; and, secondly, it urged that the federal statute, even if applicable, was invalid because it pertains to the devolution of property, a matter contended to have been wholly reserved to the States by the Tenth Amendment.
Since we accept the findings of the two state courts that Warpouske could not and did not enter into a contract to leave his property to the United States, the crucial question is whether the Government can prevail in the absence of such a contract. We hold that it can on the grounds that the federal statute relied upon does not require a contract, and that this statute does not violate the Tenth Amendment.
and become the property of the said Board of Managers for the sole use and benefit of the post fund of said home. . . ."
"not disposed of by will or otherwise shall immediately vest in and become the property of the United States as trustee for the sole use and benefit of the General Post Fund. . . . [Footnote 9]"
let . . . it go into a fund under the escheat laws of [a] State? [Footnote 13]"
Having concluded that the provisions of § 1 are clear and unequivocal on their face, we find no need to resort to the legislative history of the Act. [Footnote 14] Since the State has placed such heavy reliance upon that history, however, we do deem it appropriate to point out that this history is, at best, inconclusive. It is true, as the State points out, that Representative Rankin, as Chairman of the Committee handling the bill on the floor of the House, expressed his view during the course of discussion of the bill on the floor that the 1941 Act would not apply to insane veterans incompetent to make valid contracts. [Footnote 15] But such statements, even when they stand alone, have never been regarded as sufficiently compelling to justify deviation from the plain language of a statute. They are even less so here, for there is powerful countervailing evidence as to the intention of those who drafted the bill. The bill was drawn up and sent to the Speaker of the House, in the very form in which it was passed, by the Veterans' Bureau itself. [Footnote 16] And that Bureau, we are told, has consistently interpreted the 1941 Act as making the sanity or insanity of a veteran who dies in a veterans' hospital entirely irrelevant to the determination of the Government's rights under the Act.
The judgment of the Oregon Supreme Court is reversed, and the cause is remanded for further proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion.
"Immediately upon the death of any person who dies intestate without heirs, leaving any real, personal or mixed property, interest or estate in this state, the same escheats to and vests in the state, subject only to the claims of the creditors and as provided in ORS 120.060 to 120.130; and the clear proceeds derived therefrom shall be paid into and become a part of the Common School Fund of this state and be loaned or invested by the State Land Board, as provided by law."
38 U.S.C. (1952 ed.) § 17.
222 Or. 40, 352 P.2d 539.
The conflict alleged is with the decisions in Skriziszouski's Estate, 382 Pa. 634, 116 A.2d 841; and In re Gonsky's Estate, 79 N.D. 123, 55 N.W.2d 60.
"In passing the Act of June, 1910, Congress merely directed the terms and conditions under which veterans, consistently with state law, can obtain admittance to Homes built, maintained, and operated by the government for the benefit of veterans. Homes for the aged, needy, or infirm, in return for the benefits bestowed by them, generally receive some benefit from any property or estates of their members."
United States v. Stevens, 302 U. S. 623, 302 U. S. 627.
55 Stat. 868, 38 U.S.C. (1952 ed.) § 17 et seq.
38 U.S.C. (1952 ed.) § 17a.
These fears doubtless arose, in part at least, from the fact that the Circuit Court of Appeals had, in the Stevens case, supra, declared even the milder provisions of the 1910 Act unconstitutional under the Tenth Amendment, Stevens v. United States, 1 Cir., 89 F.2d 151, a holding ultimately reversed by this Court.
See the Brief History of Legislation Pertaining to Veterans' Benefits, 38 U.S.C.A. 1.
Cf. United States v. Bowen, 100 U. S. 508, 100 U. S. 513-514; National Home v. Wood, 299 U. S. 211, 299 U. S. 216.
See H.R.Rep. No. 609, 77th Cong., 1st Sess., pp. 1-2.
See, e.g., Kolovrat v. Oregon, ante, p. 366 U. S. 187. This was also implicit in the holding in United States v. Stevens, 302 U. S. 623. See note 11 supra. Cf. Hines v. Lowrey, 305 U. S. 85, in which this Court rejected the contention that the Federal Constitution does not confer any authority upon Congress to deal with mental incompetents.
See, e.g., Case v. Bowles, 327 U. S. 92; Oklahoma v. Atkinson Co., 313 U. S. 508; United States v. Darby, 312 U. S. 100.
MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS, with whom MR. JUSTICE WHITTAKER concurs, dissenting.
is valid under state law. United States v. Stevens, 302 U. S. 623, 302 U. S. 627. It may be that an action in quantum meruit would lie against the estate of a person who, though utterly incompetent as Adam B. Warpouske concededly was, received treatment at a federal hospital. [Footnote 2/1] It may be that the United States could appropriate all unexpended funds from federal pensions or federal insurance policies in exchange for the services rendered an incompetent. See United States v. Hall, 98 U. S. 343; Wissner v. Wissner, 338 U. S. 655; cf. Miller Music Corp. v. Charles N. Daniels, Inc., 362 U. S. 373. The power of Congress to legislate concerning the claims of all veterans, whether competent or incompetent, is well settled. Hines v. Lowrey, 305 U. S. 85.
made by the United States with another nation provides for reciprocal inheritance rights by the nationals of the two countries, a State cannot provide otherwise. If it could, one State would indeed be revising the foreign policy that the Federal Government makes. In the context of the Fourteenth Amendment, the rights of a State to provide rules governing inheritance may also be compelled to bow to federal policy. See R.S. § 1978, 42 U.S.C. § 1982.
Yet the Supremacy Clause is not without limits. For a federal law to have supremacy, it must be made "in pursuance" of the Constitution. The Court, of course, recognizes this, and it justifies this federal law governing devolution of property under the Necessary and Proper Clause of Art. I, § 8.
The power to build hospitals and homes for veterans and to pay them pensions is plainly necessary and proper to the powers to raise and support armies and navies and to conduct wars. The power to provide for the administration of the estates of veterans (which are not made up of federal funds owing the veterans) is to me a far cry from any such power. But the present Act is of that character.
This federal law governing estates of veterans is phrased in the language of contract. It is designed to draw into the federal treasury all estates of the kind mentioned, whether they be worth six cents or a million dollars. The federal claim is not for services rendered, as no effort is made to restrict the amount of the federal claim to benefits received. The Act plainly is a federal succession law.
and who leaves personal property not disposed of by will and to which no surviving spouse, next of kin or heirs are entitled under the laws of his domicile. Such property, the Act says, "shall immediately vest in and become the property of the United States." § 1. The acceptance of care or treatment at a Veterans' Hospital is, by the terms of the Act, acceptance of the provisions of the Act, and has "the effect of an assignment" of the property effective at death. § 1. The fact of death in a Veterans' Hospital of a veteran "leaving no spouse, next of kin, or heirs" gives rise "to a conclusive presumption" of a valid contract for the disposition of the property in that way to the United States. § 2. Moreover, the Veterans' Administration is authorized to administer the estate, paying creditors' claims, if presented within designated times, and granting them the preference and priorities prescribed by local law. § 4.
We know that, while the Act is based on "a conclusive presumption" that a contract to assign the property to the United States was made, there was, in fact, no contract in this case. During the period of Warpouske's hospitalization -- from March 1, 1956, to March 19, 1956, the day of his death -- he was either comatose or semi-comatose. [Footnote 2/3] We deal with a presumption that is contrary to the fact (cf. Tot v. United States, 319 U. S. 463). We have then a case involving the power of Congress to provide for the administration of the estate of a deceased veteran where he has, in fact, made no assignment of it to the Federal Government. To what power is that necessary and proper?
Only recently, we warned against an expansive construction of the Necessary and Proper Clause. We stated that it is "not itself a grant of power, but a caveat that the Congress possesses all the means necessary to carry out" the powers specifically granted. Kinsella v. Singleton, 361 U. S. 234, 361 U. S. 247. Powers not given "were reserved," as Madison said. VI Writings of James Madison (Hunt ed.) 390. And "no powers were given beyond those enumerated in the Constitution, and such as were fairly incident to them." Ibid.
federal officeholder, in case of any federal pensioner. Of course, Congress cannot be expected to use this vast new power to the extreme. But we -- unlike England -- live under a written Constitution that limits powers, not entrusting the Constitution to the conscience of the legislative body.
The Tenth Amendment does not, of course, dilute any power delegated to the national government. That is one face of the truism that runs through our decisions. United States v. Darby, 312 U. S. 100, 312 U. S. 124; Oklahoma v. Atkinson Co., 313 U. S. 508, 313 U. S. 534; Case v. Bowles, 327 U. S. 92, 327 U. S. 101. But when the Federal Government enters a field as historically local as the administration of decedents' estates, some clear relation of the asserted power to one of the delegated powers should be shown. At times, the exercise of a delegated power reaches deep into local problems. Wickard v. Filburn, 317 U. S. 111, allowed the commerce power to extent to home-grown and home-used wheat, because total control was essential for effective control of the interstate wheat market. But there is no semblance of likeness here. The need of the Government to enter upon the administration of veterans' estates -- made up of funds not owing from the United States -- is no crucial phase of the ability of the United States to care for ex-service men and women or to manage federal fiscal affairs.
Today's decision does not square with our conception of federalism. There is nothing more deeply imbedded in the Tenth Amendment, as I read history, than the disposition of the estates of deceased people. I do not see how a scheme for administration of decedents' estates of the kind we have here can possibly be necessary and proper to any power delegated to Congress.
Federal Government (as most people do today) is not among the enumerated powers. At bottom of the present statute, as the Court points out, is a desire to make those who use a Veterans' Hospital help finance its operations. [Footnote 2/4] Congress can set rates for services rendered; it can obtain from patients assignments of assets to the United States; it can induce and encourage people to make these hospitals beneficiaries under their wills. But I do not see how it is possible for the United States to take a man's property without his consent when the United States is not a creditor in the accepted sense. The only constitutional way in which that can be done is by taxation or by condemnation. This law as applied is indeed a levy that has no support in the Constitution, and it makes a serious inroad on the Tenth Amendment. With all deference, I dissent.
See Restitution, Restatement of the Law, Am.L.Inst. (1937), § 114; 5 Corbin on Contracts (1951) § 1109.
Adam Warpouske spent a large part of his life in Veterans' Hospitals, especially during the years from 1930 to 1945. (The record also shows that he received care in the facilities of various states.) But the claim to administer his personal property arises solely from "the fact of death" in a Veterans' Hospital.
"Politicians and taxpayers have assumed (with occasional phases of doubt) that a rising total in the number of civil servants must reflect a growing volume of work to be done. Cynics, in questioning this belief, have imagined that the multiplication of officials must have left some of them idle or all of them able to work for shorter hours. But this is a matter in which faith and doubt seem equally misplaced. The fact is that the number of the officials and the quantity of the work are not related to each other at all. The rise in the total of those employed is governed by Parkinson's Law, and would be much the same whether the volume of the work were to increase, diminish, or even disappear. The importance of Parkinson's Law lies in the fact that it is a law of growth based upon an analysis of the factors by which that growth is controlled."
Parkinson, Parkinson's Law (1957), pp. 3-4.

References: § 17
 § 1
 § 17
 v. 
 § 17
 § 17
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 § 1978
 § 1982
 § 8
 § 1
 § 1
 § 2
 § 4
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 § 114
 § 1109