Your committee is unable to understand why the Department of the Army continues to insert in its reports the following words: Bills to reimburse subrogee insurance companies have repeatedly received unfavorable consideration at the hands of the Congress. As a matter of record the Congress has passed legislation from time to time to reimburse insurance companies for the amounts paid their insured where the liability rests upon the Government and also admitted by the Government as being due to negligence of its personnel. The Department of the Army admits the damages sustained by the Smiths to their residence were due to negligence of the pilot of the Army plane when it crashed into the home of the Smiths, and should therefore reimburse this company for such losses. The Congress has recognized the right of subrogation from time to time, to wit: Private Law 266, Seventy-sixth Congress (H. R. 3363): In this case Anna E. Hurley, who was the owner of property in Kansas City, Kans., sustained a loss due to the crashing of a United States Navy plane into her home. The American Insurance Co. of New Jersey were required by reason of the terms of policies issued to the said Anna E. Hurley, to pay for this damage. The American Insurance Co., in this law was reimbursed in the sum of $1,300 under their subrogation claims. The law was approved January 17, 1940. Private Law 142, Seventy-seventh Congress (H. R. 3523): In this case a United States Navy airplane crashed into the residence and garage owned by Commander H. S. Kendall in Coronado, Calif., the accident happening on December 5, 1938. By reason of the accident the Equitable Insurance Alliance, the Fidelity & Guarantee Fire Corp., and the Hartford Fire Insurance Co. were compelled to pay said damages on account of liability incurred under contracts of insurance. The law provided for reimbursement under the subrogation claims presented by these companies for the entire amount paid out under their insurance contracts. This law was approved July 30, 1941. Private Law 529, Seventy-seventh Congress (H. R. 5651): In this case Frank Hall, New Paris, Ohio, sustained damages by fire to his property on or about February 18, 1939, by reason of negligence of an agent of the Soil Conservation Service, United States Department of Agriculture. The Home Insurance Co. and the American Insurance Co., were required by reason of the terms of policies issued to the said Frank Hall to pay for this damage. The Home Insurance Co., in this law was reimbursed in the sum of $297.42; and the American Insurance Co., was paid the sum of $3,544.25 under their subrogation claims This law was approved December 2, 1942 Private Law 276, Seventy-seventh Congress (H. R. 3118): This case presents a new type of assignment: It was for the relief of the State Compensation Fund of California Frank Ross, of Davis, Calif., sustained personal injuries on December 2, 1937, when an automobile which he was driving was struck by a United States Civilian Conservation Corps truck. The State compensation insurance fund paid Mr. Ross for compensation and medical treatment the sum of $1,684.98. This law completely reimbursed the State Compensation Fund of California the entire amount they were compelled to pay by reason of this accident This law was approved February 16, 1942. Private Law 430, Seventy-eighth Congress (S. 1278): In this case a civilian vehicle was transporting a number of local shipments of freight at the time of the accident, all of which were destroyed by the collision and the ensuing fire. The Yellow Cab Co. paid its patrons a total of $8,067.34 for freight lost in the wreck. This amount was subsequently recovered by the company from its insurer, the Equitable Fire & Marine Insurance Co., amounting to $7,901.83. These losses were sustained as a result of a collision between the Yellow Cab Co. truck and a United States Army vehicle. This law was approved in favor of the Equitable Insurance Co. on December 6, 1944 Public Law 637 in the Eightieth Congress is to reimburse subrogation claims and in Senate Report No. 1355 it is stated that subrogated claims as well as personal claims should be paid there appearing no reason why the Government, having determined its liability, should not pay such subrogated claims. This language is clear and certainly shows the intent of Congress in the settlement of subrogated claims and, therefore, your committee recommend favorable consideration to this bill. Hon. EARL C. MICHENER, DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY, Washington, D. C., December 22, 1947. Chairman, Committee on the Judiciary, House of Representatives. DEAR MR. MICHENER: The Department of the Army is opposed to the enactment of H. R. 1208, Eightieth Congress, a bill for the relief of Bankers and Shippers Insurance Co. This bill provides as follows: "That the Secretary of the Treasury be, and he is hereby authorized and directed to pay, out of any money in the Treasury not otherwise appropriated. the sum of $2.905.78, to the Bankers and Shippers Insurance Co., of San Francisco, Calif., in full settlement of all claims against the United States for property damages sustained to the residence of Joseph J. Smith and Cecil A. Smith at 67 Alexander Avenue, Daly City, Calif., as the result of an accident involving a United States Army pursuit plane on December 5, 1943." On December 5, 1943, at about 8:25 a. m., an Army airplane engaged in an authorized training flight crashed while flying over Daly City, Calif. The ensuing explosion and the scattering of parts of the plane caused varying amounts of damage to several homes in the vicinity. Joseph J. Smith and Cecil A. Smith claimed to have sustained damages to their real and personal property located at 67 Alexander Avenue, Daly City, Calif., in an amount estimated by them at $3,229.38 Joseph J. Smith and Cecil A. Smith carried insurance on both the house and the furniture contained therein. The Bankers and Shippers Insurance Co. paid them $2,905.78 for damages to the house and another company paid them $283.60. for damages to the furniture. Only one item of their claim ($40 for rent) was disapproved. H. R. 1208 would reimburse the Bankers and Shippers Insurance Co. for the payment made by it to Joseph J. Smith and Cecil A. Smith under the policy of insurance issued by such company to the Smiths. Bills to reimburse subrogee insurance companies have repeatedly received unfavorable consideration at the hands of the Congress. There is no equitable basis for reimbursing this insurer for the amount of the payment made by it to its insureds. The insurance company assessed and collected premiums for the risk which it took in insuring the Smith property and, accordingly, it is the view of the Department of the Army that the reimbursement of such company, by means of a private relief bill in Congress, for the payment which it was bound to make under its insurance contract, would be neither appropriate nor justified. The Department, accordingly, recommends that this bill be not favorably considered. The Bureau of the Budget has advised that there is no objection to the submission of this report. Sincerely yours Re H. R. 571, Eighty-first Congress. Hon. JACK Z. ANDERSON, House of Representatives, Washington, D. C. KENNETH C. ROYALL, A. BROOKS BERLIN, DEAR MR. ANDERSON: In answer to your last inquiry, the facts of the abovecaptioned accident are as follows: On December 5, 1943, at 9:30 a. m., a United States Army aircraft crashed into a dwelling adjacent to the dwelling of Joseph J. and Cecil A. Smith, located at 69 Alexander Avenue, Daly City, Calif. Immediately thereafter, the aforementioned aircraft exploded setting fire to the Smith residence as well as the residence into which it crashed. For your information, the contract price of $2,905.78 represented the cost of repairing the Smith residence and was determined through competitive bids by the Von Bokkelen Construction Co. and Wm. H. Grahn Co. For your further information, the residence of Smith, which was insured by the Bankers & Shippers Insurance Co., was moved out of line on the foundations and the foundation broken; the terrazzo stairs and porch were completely sheared off; all interior plaster was cracked and broken: all flooring had to be relaid; electric wiring had to be repaired; the furnace in the basement was broken; all weather stripping had to be renewed; the entire interior had to be redecorated and the roof had to be repaired. Mr. Smith had painted his home approximately 3 months prior to the accident. Thanking you very much for your continued fine work in this matter and with very best personal wishes I am, Very truly yours, A. BROOKS BERLIN. O 1st Session No. 772 JOHN E. BURNS JUNE 9, 1949.-Committed to the Committee of the Whole House and ordered to be printed Mr. JENNINGS, from the Committee on the Judiciary, submitted the following REPORT [To accompany H. R. 632] The Committee on the Judiciary, to whom was referred the bill (H. R. 632) for the relief of John E. Burns, having considered the same, report favorably thereon without amendment and recommend that the bill do pass. The purpose of the proposed legislation is to pay the sum of $232.80 to John E. Burns, Redding, Calif. Such sum represents the amount. to which the said John E. Burns was entitled on the date of separation from his employment with the Corps of Engineers, Department of War, Honolulu District, Territory of Hawaii, for annual leave which he accumulated during the period beginning July 2, 1942, and ending July 23, 1943, but which he did not receive on such separation date because of erroneous information given him by the Corps of Engineers, Honolulu District, that he would be paid for such leave upon his return to the continental United States, where payment was refused later. STATEMENT OF FACTS It appears that Mr. John E. Burns was appointed a miner at $1.25 per hour, effective July 3, 1942, by the Office of the Division Engineer, South Pacific Division, United States Army Corps of Engineers, San Francisco, Calif., and that he was transferred to the Honolulu District, effective July 4, 1942. He was relieved from duty upon the completion of his employment contract and was returned to the continental United States on July 23, 1943. The Secretary of the Army in his report dated April 15, 1949, states: Although Mr. Burns' contract contained a provision for the accrual of annual leave, such leave was denied to him and to all other civilian employees of the Army in Hawaii who were paid on an hourly basis. It appears that in August 1943 it was determined that this denial of annual leave to such employees was improper and they were, thereafter, granted annual leave. The authority contained in the act of June 3, 1941 (55 Stat. 241), which permitted cash payments to employees of the War Department for annual leave which they were required to forego, had expired on June 30, 1942. The act of December 21, 1944 (58 Stat. 845), authorizing lump-sum payments for accrued annual leave to the credit of employees upon their separation from the service, is not retroactive and hence has no application to cases arising prior to its date. It therefore appears that while Mr. Burns is equitably entitled to compensation for the annual leave which he earned but which was not granted to him, there is no statutory authority under which he may be paid such compensation administratively. However, there are hundreds of other former employees of the United States similarly situated. The Department of the Army is opposed to the enactment of special legislation of this type, which would discriminate in favor of one individual while others in the same category are not similarly benefited, and it knows of no special facts which would warrant singling out Mr. Burns for preferential treatment. The Department, therefore, recommends that this bill be not favorably considered. As will be noted in this report, the Secretary of the Army admits that the denial of annual leave to this employee was improper, and thereafter granted annual leave, but did not make it retroactive. Your committee is of the opinion that Mr. Burns is entitled to the payment of his accrued annual leave and, therefore, recommends favorable consideration to this bill. Hon. EMANUEL CELLER, Chairman, Committee on the Judiciary, DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY, House of Representatives DEAR MR. CELLER: The Department of the Army is opposed to the enactment of H. R. 632, Eighty-first Congress, a bill for the relief of John E. Burns. This bill provides as follows: "That the Secretary of the Treasury is authorized and directed to pay, out of any money in the Treasury not otherwise appropriated, to John E. Burns, Redding, California, the sum of $232.80. Such sum represents the amount to which the said John E. Burns was entitled on the date of separation from his employment with the Corps of Engineers, Department of War, Honolulu District, Territory of Hawaii, for annual leave which he accumulated during the period beginning July 2, 1942, and ending July 23, 1943, but which he did not receive on such separation date because of erroneous information given him by the Corps of Engineers, Honolulu District, that he would be paid for such leave upon his return to the continental United States, where such payment was later refused." It appears that Mr. John E. Burns was appointed a miner at $1.25 per hour, effective July 3, 1942, by the Office of the Division Engineer, South Pacific Division, United States Army Corps of Engineers, San Francisco, Calif., and that he was transferred to the Honolulu District, effective July 4, 1942. He was relieved from duty upon the completion of his employment contract and was returned to the continental United States on July 23, 1943. Although Mr. Burns' contract contained a provision for the accrual of annual leave, such leave was denied to him and to all other civilian employees of the Army in Hawaii who were paid on an hourly basis. It appears that in August 1943 it was determined that this denial of annual leave to such employees was improper and they were, thereafter, granted annual leave. The authority contried in the act of June 3, 1941 (55 Stat. 241), which permitted cash payments to employees of the War Department for annual leave which they were required to forego, had expired on June 30, 1942. The act of December 21, 1944 (58 Stat. 845) authorizing lump-sum payments for accrued annual leave to the credit of employees upon their separation from the service is not retroactive and hence has no application to cases arising prior to its date. It therefore appears that, while Mr. Burns is equitably entitled to compensation for the annual leave which he earned but which was not granted to him, there is no statutory authority under which he may be paid such compensation administratively. However, there are hundreds of other former employees of the United States similarly situated. The Department of the Army is opposed to the enactment of special legislation of this type, which would discriminate in favor of one individual while others in the same category are not similarly benefited, and it knows of no special facts which |