RELIEF OF DAVID A. WRIGHT

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,

SUBCOMMITTEE No. 3 OF THE COMMITTEE ON WAR CLAIMS,

Tuesday, March 6, 1928.

The subcommittee met at 10.30 o'clock a. m., Hon. James H. Sinclair (chairman), presiding.

Present: Mr. Whitehead, Mr. Jenkins, and Mrs. Kahn.
Also present: Mr. Chindblom.

Mr. SINCLAIR. The meeting this morning is particularly for the purpose of making a record of the Wright case, which Mr. Williams here represents, and I especially wanted Mr. Whitehead and Mr.. Jenkins to be here so as to take part in the hearing in order to see that everything comes into the hearing that is proper and convincing, and of a legal nature which would satisfy lawyers as to evidence, etc. (The bill, H. R. 8239, reads as follows:)

[H. R. 8239, Seventieth Congress, first session]

A BILL For the relief of David A Wright

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That in order to reimburse David A. Wright, of Chicago, Illinois, for labor and material costs expended by him in 1918, at the request of officers of the War Department, in the rehabilitation of a manufacturing plant at Chicago, Illinois, for the manufacture of heavyduty lathes for the War Department, and for labor and material costs expended in the beginning of manufacture of such heavy-duty lathes, there is hereby appropriated, out of any money in the Treasury not otherwise appropriated, the sum of $92,459.46.

SEC. 2. That in order to reimburse the said David A. Wright for money paid by him to the United States as a part of the purchase price of certain machinery which was agreed to be purchased by him from the United States, but which was not delivered in accordance with the terms of sale,, and in order to reimburse and compensate the said David A. Wright for the cost of transportation, unloading, handling, and storage by him in his warehouse in Chicago, Illinois, of machinery belonging to the United States, there is hereby appropriated, out of any money in the Treasury not otherwise appropriated, the further sum of $37,289.59.

Mr. CHINDBLOM. I introduced H. R. 8239, which your subcommittee is hearing this morning, and I am greatly obliged to the committee itself and to the subcommittee for the consideration which is being given the measure.

I shall not discuss the merits of the claim or the rather interesting and complicated legal questions involved, but will ask the committee to kindly consider the matter with that considerable degree of patience which I know it will require.

I have interviewed Mr. Wright at length and myself formed a clear opinion as to the justness of his claim, the equity of his claim, and hope the committee will find a way of providing not compensation

1

but reimbursement for outlays and expenditures which Mr. Wright had out of purely patriotic motives for the purposes of assisting his Government and our Government in winning the war.

Mr. Ashby Williams is here as attorney for Mr. Wright and will state the case.

Mr. SINCLAIR. We are very glad to have your statement and it will be given very careful consideration by the committee.

Mr. WHITEHEAD. I know you have been a Member of Congress for some time and are familiar with precedents. Do you recall any precedent for a case of this sort?

Mr. CHINDBLOM. Congress passed the Dent Act, as is well known. That was intended, in my opinion, at least to cover cases of this kind, cases where by reason of informality the legal officers of the Government would have to hold that a legal contract, in the ordinary sense, had not been made. For reasons over which I do not think Mr. Wright himself had control, this claim does not seem to have fallen within the letter of the Dent Act, but I do think it comes within the spirit of it.

Mr. WHITEHEAD. We are familiar with the Dent Act and familiar with the method of administering that act, but this bill is not introduced, of course, under the Dent Act

Mr. CHINDBLOM. Why, certainly not.

Mr. WHITEHEAD. What I want to know is this: Do you know of any case that Congress has passed on favorably where the Dent Act did not apply that has come before Congress and a bill for relief passed where the courts have decided that the contract was not made with officers having authority to make it?

Mr. CHINDBLOM. Well, I recall that in the last Congress, I think, we passed a bill with reference to mineral production in the United States.

Mr. WHITEHEAD. It did not become a law.

Mr. CHINDBLOM. No; it did not become a law, but the House passed it.

Mr. WHITEHEAD. We discussed that matter thoroughly. We are all familiar with that. I am speaking about a bill; that just covered minerals and such things as that where people went in to mine them and lost money, and did it at the request of the official of the Government who had authority to make that request. That bill was an omnibus bill for the relief of everybody and to be administered by certain officers of the Government hereafter.

Mr. CHINDBLOM. Well, no one knows better than you, a member of this committee, that war claims come along through the course of years. The World War is yet quite recent in our experience and our history and we attempted to pass general laws which would protect a citizen against injustice that might have occurred by reason of the extraordinary conditions arising in the war, but I think we must expect, after these laws have completed their course of administration and failed, in special cases, to have done what the Congress actually intended they should do, we must expect to have these special cases arise hereafter, and they no doubt will arise for some time and Congress will have to establish a policy on it.

If we are through with remedial legislation growing out of the World War simply because cases have not fallen with the purview of the general acts which we passed, then, of course, we should estab

lish that policy; but if, on the other hand, we are to concede that cases may arise which Congress in its wisdom did not foresee, and therefore did not provide for, then I think we will have to begin to consider specific cases.

Mr. SINCLAIR. There is no doubt in your mind that Mr. Wright acted in perfectly good faith when he made these expenditures?

Mr. CHINDBLOM. I have no doubt in the world as to that. I am familiar with the properties that he employed. I am familiar with the plant that he acquired and that he tried to put in use for the making of these extraordinarily large lathes.

Mr. SINCLAIR. And he did not know whether this officer was a duly qualified officer or not, did he?

Mr. CHINDBLOM. No; and we have attempted to cover just that kind of a case by other legislation. We have tried to protect business men who made contracts or agreements, or had undertakings with representatives of the Government, and did not go through with all the various formalities which we do require, and properly require, in peace times, but here during the war a man would call up somebody on the telephone, a representative of the Government would call up somebody on the telephone and say, "We have got to have so and so, such and such a product, within such and such a time. Will you proceed to get it?"

Of course, the patriotic citizen said, "Yes."

Mr. SINCLAIR. Would he have a valid legal action against a private corporation if he had gone ahead and made a similar agreement in your opinion?

Mr. CHINDBLOM. If he had made these arrangements with an individual, or if he had made them with an officer of a corporation, I have no doubt that he would have been able to sustain a claim on account of the transaction here involved.

Mr. SINCLAIR. It was a complete agreement so far as it went between the individuals?

Mr. CHINDBLOM. Yes. Now, of course, the courts have differentiated upon some nice points between this case and the cases that properly came under the Dent Act, and that matter you will have to determine, and Congress will have to determine whether the Dent Act was the last word of relief in cases arising in the late war of this character.

Mr. SINCLAIR. I am inclined to think Congress will have to meet other cases similar to this before the claims are all paid. Mr. WHITEHEAD. That is what I want to get at. Whether we are called upon to set a precedent or whether we already have one.

Mr. CHINDBLOM. I can not at this minute recall any legislation that has been passed, but I do know that legislation of a similar character is pending and has received favorable consideration in other committees.

Mr. SINCLAIR. I am inclined to think that legislation very much. like this, of a different character however, but growing out of contracts made very much like this, has been passed and has been approved by Congress. I refer to the sugar claims. They had very little to stand on in the way of a legal contract.

Mr. CHINDBLOM. Well, only the other day in the House we had a question relating to wool contracts during the war. I recall that I passed upon the particular paragraph, while presiding in the House