76TH CONGRESS 3d Session

}

SENATE

{

REPORT No. 1839

AUTHORIZING EMPLOYEES OF THE UNITED STATES TO TESTIFY ON BEHALF OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA AND EMPLOYEES OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA TO TESTIFY ON BEHALF OF THE UNITED STATES AND OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA WITHOUT LOSS OF SALARY OR ANNUAL LEAVE

JUNE 13 (legislative day, MAY 28), 1940.—Ordered to be printed

Mr. KING, from the Committee on the District of Columbia, submitted the following

REPORT

[To accompany S. 3993]

The Committee on the District of Columbia, to whom was referred the bill (S. 3993) authorizing employees of the United States to testify on behalf of the District of Columbia and employees of the District of Columbia to testify on behalf of the United States and of the District of Columbia without loss of salary or annual leave, having considered the same, report thereon favorably with the recommendation that the bill do pass.

The bill was submitted by the Commissioners of the District of Columbia with the approval of the Budget Bureau, as shown by the following letter from the president, Board of Commissioners:

Hon. WILLIAM H. KING,

Chairman, Committee on the District of Columbia,

MAY 14, 1940.

United States Senate, Washington, D. C.

MY DEAR SENator King: I have the honor to transmit herewith copy of a proposed bill "to authorize employees of the United States to testify on behalf of the District of Columbia and employees of the District of Columbia to testify on behalf of the United States and of the District of Columbia without loss of salary or annual leave." This bill was prepared at the request of the judges of the police

court.

Section 850 of the Revised Statutes provides:

"Expenses of officers of United States as witnesses.-When any clerk or other officer of the United States is sent away from his place of business as a witness for the Government, his necessary expenses, stated in items and sworn to, in going, returning, and attendance on the court, shall be audited and paid, but no mileage or other compensation in addition to his salary, shall in any case be allowed." Prior to 1924 Government employees called as witnesses for both the United States and District Governments in the police court of the District of Columbia were treated as performing official business while attending court as witnesses.

In 1924 the Comptroller General, in an opinion addressed to the Secretary of the Navy, construed section 850, Revised Statutes, to apply only to witnesses testifying for the United States Government, in cases prosecuted in the name of the United States by the United States Attorney for the District of Columbia, or his assistants. Under the Comptroller General's decision United States Government employees called as witnesses for the Government in cases prosecuted by the corporation counsel are not engaged in performance of official business, and the time spent by such employees as witnesses is charged against their annual leave.

The result of this decision has been that Government employees who may be important witnesses in the more serious offenses under the traffic and other acts which are prosecuted in the name of the District of Columbia, by the corporation counsel, are reluctant to testify, since any time consumed by such witnesses is charged against their annual leave. The seriousness of the situation thus created impelled the judges of the police court to request the submission of the proposed bill.

Inasmuch as the more important prosecutions conducted by the corporation counsel are for violations of acts of Congress, the discrimination against the Government employees called as witnesses in District of Columbia cases would appear to have no sound basis, and in fact militates strongly against the successful prosecution of such offenses.

A draft of the bill was submitted to the Bureau of the Budget and returned to the Commissioners with the advice that there would be no objection on the part of that office to the presentation of the bill to Congress, if the bill were revised in accordance with language suggested by the Comptroller General. The draft, submitted herewith, conforms with the suggestions of the Comptroller General.

Respectfully,

JNO. RUSSELL YOUNG,

Acting President, Board of Commissioners, District of Columbia.

JUNE 13 (legislative day, MAY 28), 1940.-Ordered to be printed

Mr. KING, from the Committee on the District of Columbia, submitted the following

REPORT

[To accompany S. 4048]

The Committee on the District of Columbia, to whom was referred the bill (S. 4048) for the relief of Elizabeth K. Peeples, having considered the same, hereby report favorably on the bill with the recommendation that the bill do pass.

The bill, if enacted, would authorize the Commissioners to allow credit for retirement purposes to Mrs. Elizabeth K. Peeples for all services rendered by her in the public schools of the District of Columbia, from September 1, 1920, to July 15, 1939, upon payment by her into the teachers' retirement fund of the District of such amount as may be determined by the Commissioners to be due such fund for said period with interest thereon at 4 percent per annum, compounded.

Mrs. Peeples has been an employee of the Board of Education continuously since September 1, 1920, part of that time as a teacher and administrative principal in the public schools, and part of the time as the director of the community-center department in the public schools.

While employed as a teacher and administrative principal between September 1, 1920, and June 25, 1931, Mrs. Peeples made the required contribution from her monthly salary to the teachers' retirement fund. However, upon her appointment as director of the community center department she was no longer entitled to continue under the teachers' retirement law, but instead she came while in this position under the civil-service retirement and disability law, and made the required contributions from her monthly salary under that law, until her transfer and appointment on July 15, 1939, as an administrative principal in the public schools, thus bringing her again under the teachers' retirement law, but only from the date of her appointment to that position on July 15, 1939.

As Mrs. Peeples' case now stands, and under existing law, she cannot obtain or purchase credit under the teachers' retirement law for

all or any part of the service rendered by her prior to July 15, 1939, and extending back to September 1, 1920. A decision to this effect was rendered by the Comptroller General of the United States on September 12, 1939.

The Commissioners of the District of Columbia feel that Mrs. Peeples is entitled to have credit for all teaching and other service rendered by her prior to July 15, 1939, whether such service was in the capacity of a teacher, administrative principal, or director of the community center department, as all such services were rendered in the public schools of the District.

To obtain credit for such services Mrs. Peeples would have to deposit to the credit of the teachers' retirement fund the sum of $3,299.99, representing the equivalent of deductions which it would have been necessary to make currently from her monthly salary for the period in question, with interest computed at 4 percent per annum compounded.

In view of the circumstances in this case and the grave injustice that would be done Mrs. Peeples should she be deprived of the right of obtaining credit for retirement purposes for all services rendered by her in the public schools of the District, the Commissioners of the District of Columbia, the Board of Education, and officers of the public schools urge favorable action on this bill.