POST OFFICE DEPARTMENT, Hon. THOMAS G. BURCH, Chairman, Committee on the Post Office and Post Roads, House of Representatives. MY DEAR MR. BURCH: Your letter of April 7, 1943, requested a report upon H. R. 1565, a bill relating to the appointment of postmasters. The bill provides that no postmaster shall be required to pass a competitive or noncompetitive examination as a condition to appointment upon the advancement of a post office from the fourth to the third class, or upon relegation from the third to the fourth class. Under the present law, all appointments of postmasters at post offices of the first, second, and third classes must be made in one of three ways: (1) Reappointment and classification noncompetitively of the incumbent postmaster; (2) by promotion from within the Postal Service in accordance with the civil-service rules; or (3) by open competitive examination. When an office of the fourth class advances to the third class, a postmaster is appointed in one of these three ways by the President, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate. When a third-class office is relegated to the fourth class, it is necessary to make an appointment, as the postmaster at the third class has been commissioned and his commission expires when the office is relegated to the fourth class. Fourthclass postmasters are appointed by the Postmaster General. If the postmaster is to be reappointed upon advancement or relegation of an office, it is necessary, under the existing law, for the Civil Service Commission to pass upon his qualifications. In such cases the Commission does not now require a written examination where a fourth-class postmaster is proposed for promotion to third-class postmaster, such cases being rated on the basis of experience and general fitness of the postmaster, taking into consideration the record of the conduct of the office, which is furnished by this Department, and information secured by the Commission from patrons of the office; nor does the Commission require a written examination of a postmaster upon the relegation of an office from the third to the fourth class, except where a third-class postmaster has not acquired a classified status under the provisions of the act of June 25, 1938. Attention is invited to the fact that H. R. 1565 was introduced January 28, 1943, and the Commission discontinued the written examination on offices advanced from the fourth to the third class and notified this Department thereof on January 29, 1943. The enactment of this legislation will result in eliminating the Civil Service Commission from participating in the act of qualifying the incumbent postmaster upon advancement or relegation of the office. Postmasters at all fourth-class post offices have been appointed under civilservice rules and are within the classified civil service. The same is true of all postmasters at third-class post offices except a small number who have not acquired a classified status under the provisions of the act of June 25, 1938. It does not seem necessary that those postmasters who have once taken a competitive or noncompetitive examination should be required to stand another examination. So few offices are relegated that it would be only an isolated case where the postmaster at a third-class office not having a classified status under the act of June 25, 1938, would be brought within the classified civil service without examination under the provisions of the proposed law. All postmasters at third-class offices should be classified during the present Congress. It is not mandatory that the Department reappoint a postmaster in cases of this kind; but where it has been decided to reappoint the postmaster, there could be no objection from the standpoint of the Post Office Department to eliminating the civil-service requirement for the noncompetitive test. This Department would have no objection to the enactment of this bill It has been ascertained from the Bureau of the Budget that this report is in accord with the program of the President. Very truly yours, FRANK C. WALKER, Postmaster General. O MARCH 23, 1944.-Committed to the Committee of the Whole House and ordered to be printed Mr. MERRITT, from the Committee on Military Affairs, submitted the following REPORT [To accompany H. R. 1718] The Committee on Military Affairs, to whom was referred the bill (H. R. 1718) for the relief of Garnet Charles Williams, having considered the same, submit the following report thereon, with the recommendation that it do pass. The bill under consideration authorizes the President, by and with the advice of the Senate, to appoint Garnet Charles Williams, a lieutenant colonel in the National Guard of the United States in the Army of the United States as of December 19, 1940, and to place him on the retired list of the Army as of such date with the same privileges and retired pay as provided by law for officers of the Regular Army. Garnet Charles Williams was first inducted into the military service at Buffalo, N. Y., on March 27, 1918. He served with Company K, Fifty-first Pioneer Infantry and in Headquarters Company, Fiftythird Infantry, prior to departure overseas on July 6, 1918. While in France, he participated in the Alsace defensive sector and in the Meuse-Argonne offensive. He was returned to the United States on June 12, 1919, and was honorably discharged this service on June 18, 1919, for reason of demobilization. Thereafter he was appointed a first lieutenant of Infantry in New York National Guard, which appointment was accorded Federal recognition. He later was tendered an appointment as first lieutenant, National Guard of the United States, which he accepted on June 4, 1934. He was promoted to the grade of captain, Infantry, National Guard of the United States on July 31, 1937. He received further promotions to the grade of major on June 17, 1939, and to lieutenant colonel on September 16, 1940. On the latter date he was transferred to Fort Dix, N. J., for duty with the Eighty-seventh Infantry Brigade, New York National Guard. He was physically examined at this station on On October 4, 1940, and was accepted for active military service. November 2, 1940, however, an examination performed at the station hospital, Fort Dix, revealed him to be suffering from psychoneurosis, anxiety state, severe. The examining board determined this illness to be caused by his experience in active military service during World War I and that his condition at this time was precipitated and aggravated by active military service since induction into Federal service on September 16, 1940. Lieutenant Colonel Williams later was transferred to the Walter Reed General Hospital, where a disposition board concurred in the diagnosis of his case and recommended his inactivation. At about the same time, a board of officers determined the disability to be not incurred in line of duty because of its existence prior to his entry upon active duty. As a result of this action, Lieutenant Colonel Williams was relieved from active service with the National Guard of the United States on December 19, 1940, and his National Guard status terminated. Except for the finding of the board of officers convened at Walter Reed General Hospital that Colonel Williams' disability was not incurred in line of duty, he would be entitled to retirement rights provided by law. In reaching its decision that Colonel Williams' disability was contracted prior to his entry on active duty, the board in question appears to have relied entirely upon Colonel Williams' oral statement regarding a nervous condition which he suffered shortly after the termination of World War I. The board appears to have ignored or overlooked the fact that Colonel Williams had passed at least 13 military service examinations between that time and his recent illness. Your committee is of the opinion that the record of these examinations together with Colonel Williams' active civilian life over a period of 20 years demonstrated complete recovery from his earlier illness. This necessarily results in the conclusion that Colonel Williams' break-down in November 1940 was service-connected and, consequently, he would be entitled to retirement benefits except for the erroneous conclusion of the board in question. O 78TH CONGRESS 2d Session } HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES { REPORT No. 1285 AMENDING THE FIRE AND CASUALTY ACT OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA MARCH 24, 1944.-Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union and ordered to be printed Mr. RANDOLPH, from the Committee on the District of Columbia, submitted the following REPORT [To accompany S. 1028] The Committee on the District of Columbia, to whom was referred the bill (S. 1028) to amend the Fire and Casualty Act of the District of Columbia, having considered the same, report favorably thereon without amendment and recommend that the bill do pass. The purpose of the bill is to render the Fire and Casualty Act of the District of Columbia more effective. A public hearing on this bill was held at which time all persons desiring to testify were given an opportunity to do so. The bill was not opposed by any witness. Albert F. Jordan, Superintendent of Insurance, testified that the bill had been drafted by his office, and is recommended by him. The first section of the bill adds a new alternative money penalty for offenses now enumerated in the Fire and Casualty Act of 1940. It thus authorizes the imposition of a lesser penalty than is now authorized. Under existing law, the only penalty which can be imposed is the severe one of revocation or suspension of the company's certificate of authority to transact business in the District. As a result, the Superintendent of Insurance sometimes is faced with the alternative of ignoring minor violations, with the consequent danger of breeding disrespect for the law, or of imposing a sentence entirely out of proportion to the seriousness of the offense. Provisions similar to that proposed in section 1 of this bill now are in effect in New York, Pennsylvania, Michigan, Nebraska, Louisiana, Oklahoma, and Virginia. Section 2 is similar in effect to section 1, except that section 1 applies to companies and their certificates of authority to do business while section 2 applies to individuals and their licenses as agents, brokers, etc. Section 3 reduces the amount of bond required to be posted by brokers, from $5,000 to principal sum of $1,000. This change was strongly supported by the Superintendent of Insurance on the grounds that the original provision for a $5,000 bond was made without any experience to justify it, and that experience has shown a bond in the principal sum of $1,000 would afford sufficient protection. Reduction of the bond would permit registration as brokers by a number of persons in the District who are qualified to act as brokers but who find the premium on the presently required $5,000 bond too much to pay. Section 4 strengthens the regulation of agents and brokers by providing two additional causes of revocation of licenses. As a matter of policy, it is considered desirable to restrict the placement of policies in unauthorized companies as far as possible. The existing law was drafted with this end in mind and provides, in effect, that a broker or agent may not place a risk with an unauthorized company unless, after diligent effort, he has been unable to procure from duly authorized companies the policies or contracts required to protect the property or risk. The language in section 4 would close up two loopholes in this law by making it impossible for a broker or agent to justify placement of a risk with an unauthorized company merely by demanding abnormal provisions in the policy or by demanding a cut rate. In this respect, the proposed amendment is in accord with public policy, and it will be a further protection against misrepresentation and fraud. This bill is approved by the Commissioners of the District of Columbia. The transmitting letter of the Commissioners to the Senate District Committee is made a part of this report. Hon. PAT MCCARRAN, Chairman, Committee on the District of Columbia, United States Senate, Washington, D. C. MARCH 25, 1943. MY DEAR SENATOR MCCARRAN: The Commissioners of the District of Columbia have the honor to submit to you herewith a draft of a proposed bill to amend the Fire and Casualty Act of the District of Columbia. The purpose of sections 1 and 2 of the amendment is to impose more equitable punishment for minor infractions of the insurance laws and regulations than that now imposed by sections 3 and 36 of chapter II of the Fire and Casualty Act. These two sections of the Fire and Casualty Act require suspension or revocation of the certificate of authority or the license to write fire and casualty insurance in the District for violations of any of the offenses there enumerated. There is no provision for a less severe penalty and consequently the Superintendent of Insurance must either impose no penalty whatever for relatively minor offenses or must impose a penalty of unwarranted severity. It is believed that the provisions contained in sections 1 and 2 of the proposed bill would permit the Superintendent to impose penalties more equitably and with less hardship upon innocent policyholders and members of the public who might be inconvenienced by revocation or suspension of the licenses of companies or agents. Frequently offenses may not be sufficiently serious to warrant inconvenience to the public or hardship upon policyholders, but may show such a disregard of the law as to require the imposition of some penalty. If the law permitted penalties upon the perpetrators of minor offenses without imposing the more severe penalty of suspension or revocation, it is believed that such provision would cause greater respect for the law and would aid in departmental administration of the insurance laws. Sections 1 and 2 of the proposed bill therefore are not for the purpose of giving to the Superintendent of Insurance greater authority, but for the purpose of permitting a more just administration of the law by imposing an appropriate penalty upon the guilty person without disturbing innocent policyholders. The penalty provisions proposed are somewhat similar to provisions in the statutes of the States of New York, Pennsylvania, Michigan, Nebraska, Louisiana, Oklahoma, and Virginia. The maximum penalties provided in the statutes of the States just named range from $200 to $1,000. |