Search billions of records on Ancestry.com
   

Lieutenant Henry B. Broders Claim



MARY E. BRODERS.

LETTER FROM THE ASSISTANT CLERK OF THE COURT OF CLAIMS TRANSMITTING A COPY OF THE FINDINGS OF THE COURT IN THE CASE OF MARY E. BRODERS, WIDOW OF HENRY B. BRODERS, DECEASED, AGAINST THE UNITED STATES.

March 9, 1912.óReferred to the Committee on Claims and ordered to be printed.

Court Of Claims, Clerk's Office,
Washington, March 8, 1912.
Hon. James S. Sherman,
President of the Senate.

Sir: Pursuant to the order of the court I transmit herewith a certified copy of the findings of fact and conclusion filed by the court in the aforesaid cause, which case was referred to this court by resolution of the United States Senate, under the act of March 3, 1887, known as the Tucker Act.

I am, very respectfully, yours,
John Randolph, Assistant Clerk Court of Claims.

(Court of Claims of the United States. Congressional, No. 14247-52. Mary E. Broders, widow of Henry B. Broders, deceased, r. The United States.)

STATEMENT OF CASE.
This is a claim for payment to above-named claimant of travel allowances alleged to be due to Henry B. Broders, one of the proposed beneficiaries under the name of Henry B. Brodese, under Senate bill 9501, second session, Sixtieth Congress, for the relief of Cyrus H. Abbott and others, the second section only of which relates to this claim, and reads as follows:

"sec. 2. That the Secretary of the Treasury be, and he is hereby, authorized and directed, out of any money in the Treasury not otherwise appropriated, to pay to each of the following persona named in this section, or if deceased, to the party entitled thereto, the sum of five hundred dollars, or so much thereof as may be necessary, Wng for travel allowance when honorably discharged from the military service of the United States, namely: * * * Henry B. Broders, * * *."

Said bill was referred to this court on May 22,1908, by resolution of the United States fcnate for proceedings under the act of Congress approved March 3, 1887, known as the Tucker Act.

The case was brought to a hearing on its merits on the 17th day of January, 1912.

C. D. Pennebaker appeared for the claimant, and the Attorney General, by W. W. Scott, Esq., his assistant and under his direction, appeared for the defense and protection of the intereats of the United States.

The claimant in her petition makes the following allegations: That she is a citizen of the United States and a resident of Boyd County, State of Kentucky, and is the widow of Henry B. Broders, one of the proposed beneficiaries under said bill 9501; that on or about November 15, 1862, said decedent was in the military service of the United States, serving as first lieutenant, Company A, Fourteenth Kentucky Volunteer Infantry; that he then tendered his resignation, which was duly accepted by competent authority, and he was honorably discharged November 17, 1862.

That under the law then in force (sec. 15, act of Jan. 29, 1813; 2 Stats., 796) any officer discharged except by way of punishment for an offense was allowed his travel pay commuted in the manner and at the rate therein provided; that he was denied a claim for travel allowance by the accounting officers of the Treasury on the authority of Sweet v. The United States (189 U. S., 47li, and that thereupon he applied to Congress for relief and his claim was referred to this court as hereinbefore recited.

The court, upon the evidence and after considering the briefs and arguments of counsel on both sides, makes the following

FINDINGS OF FACT.
I. The decedent, Henry B. Broders, was enrolled in the military service of the United States in the Fourteenth Kentucky Volunteer Infantry at Ashland, Ky. He was discharged as a first lieutenant at Winchester, Ky., November 17, 1862, on his resignation tendered and accepted for personal reasons, and he has not been paid travel pay and subsistence from place of discharge to place of enrollment.

II. Said decedent applied to the accounting officers of the Treasury for travel allowances and his claim was disallowed upon the ground that he was discharged for his own convenience. Except as above stated the claim herein was never presented to any other officer or department of the Government prior to its presentation to Congress and reference to this court as hereinbefore set forth in the statement of the case, and no reason is adduced to show why claimant did not earlier prosecute said claim.

III. The travel pay of a first lieutenant of Infantry from Ashland, Ky., to Winchester, Ky., 274 miles, at the rate of one day's pay proper and one day's subsistence of four rations per day for every 20 miles of the distance between said points, amounts to $39.27, from which should be deducted 3% tax, leaving a balance of thirty-eight dollars and ten cents ($38.10).

CONCLUSION.
Upon the foregoing findings of fact the court concludes, on the authority of the case of Sweet v. United States (189 U. S., 471), that the claim herein is neither a legal nor an equitable one against the United States, they having received no benefit therefrom, and any payment thereof rests in the bounty of Congress.

By The Court.

Filed February 12, 1912.

A true copy.

Test this 7th day of March, 1912.

[seal.] John Randolph,



Source: Reports, Documents, and Journals of the U.S. Senate and House of Representatives. United States Congressional Serial Set, By United States Government Printing Office. Published by U.S. G.P.O., 1912, pp. 385/386


RETURN TO TABLE OF CONTENTS