As no evidence has been submitted to show that the postmaster in any way benefited from the transaction or was personally implicated in the loss other than failure to provide a system of fixing individual responsibility covering the employees of his office, this Department would interpose no objection to the enactment of this measure. Since there is no evidence submitted to show that the postmaster in any way benefited from the transaction, the committee feels that Mr. Cooper's account should be credited. Therefore, the committee. recommend favorable consideration to the proposed legislation. Appended hereto is the report of the Postmaster General and an affidavit of Mr. Cooper. Hon. DAN R. McGEHEE, OFFICE OF THE POSTMASTER General, Chairman, Committee on Claims, House of Representatives. MY DEAR MR. MCGEHEE: The receipt is acknowledged of your recent request for a report upon H. R. 2237, a bill for the relief of John T. Cooper. This case involving the disappearance of $179 from the locked drawer of a substitute clerk of the Hartselle, Ala., post office has been the subject of an extensive investigation by several post-office inspectors and from the reports submitted it has not been possible to place the blame for the actual disappearance of the money. The cash was taken from the lock drawer provided for the use of the substitute clerk, who upon leaving the office at the close of business inserted the drawer in the chest within the vault but failed to lock it, thus making it possible for anyone entering the vault later on that day or before he removed it on the next day to have access to the drawer which contained bond and money-order funds accumulated after the time for the daily deposit. The clerk, therefore, although no evidence was produced to show that he actually took the money, is believed to have been guilty of contributory negligence. He defintely refused to make good the amount. The inspectors found that John T. Cooper, the postmaster at Hartselle, Ala., was negligent in that he had failed to place in operation a system of safeguarding Government funds that would fix individual responsibility at all times, and for that reason held the postmaster responsible on the ground of inadequate supervision and collected the $179 from him. As no evidence has been submitted to show that the postmaster in any way benefited from the transaction or was personally implicated in the loss other than failure to provide a system of fixing individual responsibility covering the employees of his office, this Department would interpose no objection to the enactment of this measure. 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, K. P. ALDRICH, Acting Postmaster General. STATE OF ALABAMA, County of Morgan, ss: Personally appeared John T. Cooper, of legal age, who makes the following statement under oath: I am postmaster at Hartselle, Morgan County, Ala., and was so serving on October 24, 1940, when a shortage of $179 occurred in the accounts of Clerk White. Prior to the time this shortage was discovered Clerk White had reported the loss of his keys, including that to his stamp drawer. Clerk White declared that he had not used this money or any part of it. The responsibility for this shortage was never definitely fixed on anyone, and as result I paid the sum of $179 to Post Office Inspectors Hall and Gibbs on October 15, 1941. I paid this money from my personal funds. I know that I did not take or use any of the amount of this money found to be short, and I do not know who did take it. I paid this money because I was head of the office, and individual responsibility could not be placed. The clerk in whose account the shortage occurred was later removed from the service on account of his acts and deeds growing out of this shortage, and his personal conduct while off and on duty. Inasmuch as individual responsibility for this loss could never be established, and was paid by me from personal funds, I am of the opinion that I should be reimbursed. JNO. T. COOPER, Postmaster, Hartselle, Ala. Subscribed and sworn to before me at Hartselle, Ala., this the 18th day of February 1944. JOHN M. O'CONNELL MAY 29, 1944.-Committed to the Committee of the Whole House and ordered to be printed Mr. RAMEY, from the Committee on Claims, submitted the following REPORT [To accompany H. R. 2530] The Committee on Claims, to whom was referred the bill (H. R. 2530) for the relief of John M. O'Connell, having considered the same, report favorably thereon without amendment and recommend that the bill do pass. The purpose of the proposed legislation is to appropriate the sum of $64.59, to John M. O'Connell, Watertown, Mass., such sum representing the amount of damages and court costs paid by him pursuant to judgments of the municipal court of the city of Boston rendered in two actions of tort brought against him as the driver of a mail truck which was in a collision with a cab of the Yellow Cab Co., in the city of Boston, Mass., on July 9, 1940. STATEMENT OF FACTS It appears from the evidence, that on July 9, 1940, a United States mail truck, driven by John M. O'Connell an employee of the Post Office Department, was proceeding north on Federal Street, Boston, Mass. Opposite No. 92, a parked taxicab drew away from right curb without giving warning, and the Government operator in trying to avoid a collision swerved to left side of street and his truck right front collided with left rear of taxicab, leaving right curb. The left front of mail truck then collided with left front of a second taxicab proceeding in opposite direction. It had been raining and when truck operator applied brakes, the truck skidded. The case was tried in municipal court and despite the evidence indicating that the Government operator was without fault, judgments were obtained against employee O'Connell, plus court costs. The report of the Post Office Department states: In the circumstances it is believed that the pending bill should receive favorable consideration. We, your committee, having considered the evidence, concur with the Department's recommendation, and recommend that the bill be favorably considered without amendments. Appended hereto is the report of the Post Office Department, together with other evidence and made a part of this report. Hon. DAN R. McGEHEE, POST OFFICE DEPARTMENT, Washington, D. C., April 17, 1944. Chairman, Committee on Claims, House of Representatives. MY DEAR MR. MCGEHEE: In compliance with the request contained in your letter of March 17, I transmit for consideration with H. R. 2530, a bill for the relief of John M. O'Connell, of Watertown, Mass., in the amount of $64.59, all papers relating to the accident in which Carrier O'Connell was involved with taxicabs belonging to the Y. D. Taxi, Inc., and the Fenway Taxicab Co., which accident occurred at Boston, Mass., on July 9, 1940. The investigation of this accident disclosed that the mail truck was being operated in a northerly direction when a taxicab pulled away from the curb, forcing the truck to the left side of the street, where it collided with a cab bound in the opposite direction. Thereupon the right front part of the truck collided with the left rear corner of the cab which had just left the curb. Despite the evidence indicating that the postal chauffeur was without fault, judgments were obtained in the amounts of $35 and $25 against Carrier O'Connell. Presumably the additional $4.59 which he is claiming represents the costs assessed against him. In the circumstances it is believed that the pending bill should receive favorable consideration. 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, K. P. ALDRICH, Acting Postmaster General. BOSTON, February 9, 1948. Re: Y. D. Taxi, Inc. v. John O'Connell in the municipal court of the city of Boston. Your file FMS:WSW 145-5-51. The ATTORNEY GENERAL, Department of Justice, Washington, D. C. SIR: Kindly be advised that this case was tried before a single justice of the Boston Municipal Court on Monday, February 2, 1942. The plaintiff cab proved property damage in the sum of $127 and the plaintiff operator proved 10 days total disability and 7 days partial disability. The trial of the case developed no questions of law and was decided upon a pure question of fact. In the case of the taxicab company the court found for the plaintiff the sum of $35 and in the case of the operator which was for personal injury, the court found for the plaintiff the sum of $25. There is no basis for appeal. Therefore, we are returning the file to you and it is being treated as closed in this office. Respectfully, EDMUND J. BRANDON, By WILLIAM J. KOEN, |