vised by letter of May 9, 1939, that no such action could be taken. Subsequent letters of protest dated May 18, May 25, and June 14, 1939, were received from Mrs. Humble. Meanwhile, the 60-day period within which Mrs. Humble was required to make her first payment on the purchase price had expired and payment was requested by letter dated May 20, 1939. No payment on her contract obligation was received from Mrs. Humble and the contract was terminated by the Federal Works Administrator December 21, 1939, the function of the Secretary of the Treasury and the Director of Procurement with respect to the disposition of surplus real estate under the act of August 27, 1935, supra, having been transferred to the Federal Works Administrator by Reorganization Plan No. I of 1939. Inasmuch as no facts appear which would enable Mrs. Humble to secure the rescission of her contract as a matter of legal right, it is believed that this claim is not one excluded from consideration by rule 15 of your committee. Due to the apparent misunderstanding on the part of Mrs. Humble, this Agency offers no objection to favorable action on H. R. 8482. Copies of all pertinent papers on file with this Agency are enclosed herewith, together with a memorandum, dated July 26, 1939, outlining the transactions that occurred in connection with the disposition of the surplus portion of the Fenwick Island Light Station. MY DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: Reference is made to your letter of February 19, 1940, acknowledged February 20, requesting a report of the facts as disclosed by the files of this office relative to bill H. R. 8482, entitled "A bill for the relief of Lucia Humble,” and an opinion relative to the merits of said bill. It is proposed by the terms of this bill to relieve Miss Humble from obligations assumed by her "under contract numbered J5-PB-580," and to return to her the sum of $125.65 heretofore paid by her under said contract. There is on file in this office contract No. T5-pb-580 dated March 14, 1939, between the United States and Lucia Humble covering a sale by the United States to Miss Humble of certain property known as the Fenwick Island Light Station, Del. Del. Apparently that is the contract referred to in H. R. 8482 as "J5-PB-580." With respect to said contract, the records of this office show the following: It having been determined that the Fenwick Island Light Station was surplus to the needs of the Government the Procurement Division, Treasury Department, in January or February of 1939 advertised in accordance with the usual procedure for sealed proposals for the purchase of said property. Among the bids received in response to this invitation was one from Lucia Humble. However, her bid was not entirely free from ambiguity, in that while she inserted "$125.65" in the space designated for the amount of her offer she also indicated in her bid that she was enclosing money orders in the amout of $125.65 to cover "the required 5-percent deposit." In view of the doubt which existed as to the exact amount which Miss Humble intended to bid it appears that a hearing was held for the purpose of interrogating her relative to this matter. The following questions and answers are shown to constitute a part of the record of the hearing: "Colonel SAWYER. Miss Humble, what did you intend to bid? "Miss HUMBLE. $2,513. "Colonel SAWYER. Can you tell me why it was that you failed to make that entry in the space provided for the amount of the bid? "Miss HUMBLE. It was done in ignorance, I just didn't know. "Colonel SAWYER. Miss Humble, there is no doubt in your mind whatever that it was your intention to bid $2,513 for this property? "Miss HUMBLE. That is right. "Colonel SAWYER. You are prepared, if awarded a contract, to meet the terms of payment? "Miss HUMBLE. I am." Thereafter Miss Humble certified in affidavit of February 25, 1939, that: "In reference to my bid, dated February 24, 1939, for the Fenwick Island Lighthouse property, I wish to make it clear that I am earnestly desirous of obtaining it, and attached two money orders which together amounted to $125.65 which I intended should represent 5 percent of the full amount, $2,513, which I am willing to pay for the property. I chose the deferred payment plan." The intention of Miss Humble to bid $2,513, having thus been made absolutely clear, her offer, as amended and clarified, was accepted March 14, 1939. It thus appears that after exercising due care to determine that Miss Humble in fact intended to bid $2,513 for the property and that she was "earnestly desirous of obtaining it" for that price, her offer was accepted—thereby consummating a valid and binding contract. There is no record of a claim having been filed by Miss Humble for the refund of the deposit of $125.65, and otherwise the records of this office disclose no facts or circumstances showing any legal or equitable basis why she should or should not be relieved from the terms of her agreement. For that reason I am unable to make any suggestion or recommendation upon the merits of the proposed legislation. Sincerely yours, R. N. ELLIOTT, Acting Comptroller General of the United States. AFFIDAVIT ACCOMPANYING H. R. 8482 DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, 88: Lucia O. Humble being first duly sworn, deposes and says that prior to February 24, 1939, she was entirely inexperienced in public bidding; that upon February 24, 1939, she filled out two proposals in duplicate for the purchase of Fenwick Island Light Station, Del., excepting that one such proposal was accompanied by post office money order for $100 and the other had a post office order for $25.65 thereto attached; that at the top of page 4 of her said proposals which calls for the total amount of money bid for the property she entered $125.65 and she entered a like amount at the bottom of the same page as a 5 percent deposit; that the day following, i. e., February 25, 1939, after receiving a phone call from the Treasury Department she signed an affidavit amending her bid to $2,513, that deponent honestly believed the property to be sold included a lighthouse and that such was indicated upon the chart accompanying the bid proposals; that deponent further believed that the property on which she was bidding either included ocean beach property or was immediately adjacent thereto. That deponent is a wage earner and could not leave her employment to inspect the property for some time following the filing of her bid and that following her inspection of the property she attempted in the best way she knew how to ascertain how she could be relieved of the requirement to purchase the property, and she advised the Procurement Division of the Treasury fully of her intention not to make the proposed purchase. 1940. LUCIA O. HUMBLE. Subscribed and sworn before me, a notary public, this 21st day of February Commission expires January 3, 1942. RUSSELL H. GAUSLIN MARCH 27, 1941.-Committed to the Committee of the Whole House and ordered to be printed Mr. JENNINGS, from the Committee on Claims, submitted the following REPORT [To accompany H. R. 1267] The Committee on Claims, to whom was referred the bill (H. R. 1267) for the relief of Russell H. Gauslin, having considered the same, report favorably thereon with amendments and recommend that the bill as amended do pass. The amendments are as follows: Page 1, line 5, after the word "appropriated" strike out "to Russell Gauslin, Helen Gauslin, and Russell A. Gauslin, Junior, the sum of $2,603. Such sum shall be in full settlement of all claims of Russell Gauslin, Helen Gauslin, and Russell A. Gauslin, Junior, against the Government for personal injuries and/or damage sustained by them" and insert in lieu thereof "to Russell H. Gauslin, of Dearborn, Michigan, the sum of $2,603, in full settlement of all claims of Russell H. Gauslin, Helen Gauslin, and Russell H. Gauslin, Junior, against the United States for personal injuries sustained." Page 2, line 1, after the word "Michigan" strike out the remainder of the bill, and insert in lieu thereof : Provided, That no part of the amount appropriated in this Act in excess of 10 per centum thereof shall be paid or delivered to or received by any agent or attorney on account of services rendered in connection with this claim, and the same shall be unlawful, any contract to the contrary notwithstanding. Any person violating the provisions of this Act shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor and upon conviction thereof shall be fined in any sum not exceeding $1,000. Amend the title of the bill to read: A bill for the relief of Russell H. Gauslin. The purpose of the proposed legislation is to pay the sum of $2,606, to Russell H. Gauslin, of Dearborn, Mich., in full settlement of all claims against the United States for personal injuries sustained and medical expenses incurred by him on September 15, 1938, when the automobile in which he and his two minor children were riding was struck by an Army ambulance at Detroit, Mich. H. Repts., 77–1, vol. 2——46 STATEMENT OF FACTS On September 15, 1938, at about 8 p. m., a Ford tudor owned and operated by Russell H. Gauslin, with Helene Gauslin and Russell H. Gauslin, Jr., his minor children, as passengers was proceeding west on Joy Road, in Detroit, Mich.; that he had halted for a red light at the intersection of Douthfield Road; that he started off when the traffic signal turned green. An Army ambulance, on official business, was proceeding south on Southfield Road at a speed of approximately 35 miles per hour, that the driver when about 125 feet from the intersection of Joy Road, noticed the signal, which was green, turn to yellow, but instead of bringing his vehicle to a stop, increased his speed in order to cross the intersection before the light turned red. Government driver failed to see Mr. Gauslin's car in the intersection, and the Government vehicle collided with same, thereby causing the personal injuries complained of. The Mr. Gauslin sustained fractures of the first, second, third, fourth, fifth, and sixth ribs on the right side and puncture of the right lung, which resulted in a swelling of the tissues of the face. His hospital, medical, and nursing fees amounted to $647. His loss of wages amounted to $456. It was the view of the War Department that the proximate cause of the accident was negligence on the part of the Government driver in that he failed to stop at the intersection in obedience to the amber traffic light, and thereby failed to yield to Mr. Gauslin's car the right-of-way to which it was entitled. Your committee concur in the view of the War Department and recommend that the bill as amended to pass. Appended hereto is the War Department report, together, with other pertinent papers. Hon. AMBROSE J. KENNEDY, WAR DEPARTMENT, Washington, February 1, 1940. House of Representatives, Washington, D. C. DEAR MR. KENNEDY: Careful consideration has been given to the bill (H. R. 7748, 76th Cong., 3d séss.) for the relief of Russell Gauslin, Helen Gauslin, and Russell A. Gauslin, Jr., which you transmitted to the War Department under date of January 15, 1940, with request for information and the views of the Department relative thereto. The purpose of the proposed legislation is to pay to Russell Gauslin, Helen Gauslin, and Russell A. Gauslin, Jr., the sum of $2,603, in full settlement of all claims against the United States for personal injuries and damage sustained by them on September 15, 1938, when the automobile in which they were riding was struck by an Army ambulance at Detroit, Mich. On September 15, 1938, at about 8 p. m., a Ford tudor, owned and operated by Russell H. Gauslin, with Helene Gauslin and Russell H. Gauslin, Jr., as passengers, was proceeding west on Joy Road, in Detroit, Mich., and was stopped at the intersection of Joy Road and Southfield Road in obedience to a red traffic signal light. A car operated by Harry Schafer was stopped on the right of Mr. Gauslin's car next to the curb. At about this time, an Army ambulance, on official business, carrying a patient, was proceeding south on Southfield Road at a speed of approximately 35 miles per hour, and when approximately 125 feet from the intersection of Joy Road and Southfield Road the traffic signal light changed to yellow, but the Government driver continued his course, believing he had sufficient time to cross the intersection on the yellow light. When the traffic signal light changed to green, Mr. Schafer drove into the intersection and Mr. Gauslin also started shortly thereafter. Mr. Schafer increased his speed and the Government vehicle cleared his car, but Mr. Gauslin's car was hidden by Mr. Schafer's car and the Government driver failed to see it, and the Government vehicle collided with Mr. Gauslin's car, thereby causing the damage and personal injuries complained of. A claim was filed with the War Department by Mr. Gauslin in the amount of $2,788, for the following: Property damage to car, $185; hospital and medical expenses of Mr. Gauslin, Helene Gauslin, and Russell H. Gauslin, Jr., $604; pain and suffering of Mr. Gauslin, $1,500; loss of pay of Mr. Gauslin, $456; and pay of a nurse girl, $43. Upon review in the War Department, the claim for property damage to the car was approved in the amount of $170 ($185 damage to car less $15 for salvage). It was the view of the War Department that the proximate cause of the accident was negligence on the part of the Government driver in that he failed to stop at the intersection in obedience to the amber traffic light, and thereby failed to yield to Mr. Gauslin's car the right-of-way to which it was entitled by virtue of having entered the intersection on a green traffic signal light, and that the claim for property damage was properly for approval under the provisions of the act of December 28, 1922 (42 Stat. 1066). Mr. Gauslin agreed to accept $170 for property damage, and this amount will be included in the next deficiency bill to come before the Congress. That part of the claim covering personal injuries and expenses incident thereto, and loss of pay, was disapproved for the reason that, regardless of the merits of the claim, there was no provision of law or appropriation available to the War Department for the settlement of claims for personal injuries or expenses incident thereto arising as the result of the activities of the Army, except in a very restricted class of claims involving the operation of Army aircraft, nor for the settlement of consequential damage such as loss of wages. While the War Department is not prepared to determine the precise degree of the injuries sustained, it will interpose no objection to the enactment of legislation to compensate Mr. Gauslin, Helene Gauslin, and Russell H. Gauslin, Jr., in such amount as the Congress, in its discretion, may deem proper to allow, attention being invited to the award of $170 to Mr. Gauslin for property damage to his car. Sincerely yours, HARRY H. WOODRING, EXHIBIT Accident occurred between 7 and 8 p. m. on September 15, 1938. I was thrown from my car and rendered completely unconscious. When I regained consciousness at the hospital, I suffered excruciating pain caused by fracture of first, second, third, fourth, fifth, sixth ribs on the right side and puncture of the right lung, which resulted in a swelling of the tissues of the face to such an extent that both eyes were completely closed. Breathing was extremely painful and I was placed in an oxygen tent for a period of 2 weeks during which time I suffered continuously from pains in my chest and shoulders and arms. The pain has continued, and I find it necessary to be massaged frequently for relief, and to take sedatives in order to rest and sleep. The opinion of the doctor is that these pains may continue for a period of 3 or 4 months. In view of the foregoing, I, Russell H. Gauslin, claim compensation in the amount of $1,500 for pain and suffering, which sum I understand would be the very minimum allowed by any Michigan court in a normal problem. RUSSELL H. GAUSLIN. Subscribed and sworn to before me this 16th day of February A. D. 1939 at Detroit, Mich. My commission expires July 31, 1940. THOMAS G. JONES, Notary Public, Wayne County, Mich. Mr. RUSSELL H. GAUSLIN, Route 3, Dearborn, Mich. WILLIAM A. HUDSON, M. D., MY DEAR MR. GAUSLIN: In answer to your inquiry concerning your probable additional expenses in relation to your illness associated with your accident of |