RECLAIM COVERING DRIVERS LICENSE FEES

• Document Type: CREST
• Collection: General CIA Records
• Document Number (FOIA) /ESDN (CREST): CIA-RDP84-00709R000400070019-2
• Release Decision: RIPPUB
• Original Classification: K
• Document Page Count: 2
• Document Creation Date: December 9, 2016
• Document Release Date: June 6, 2001
• Sequence Number: 19
• Publication Date: December 31, 1948
• Content Type: MEMO

A*1110.1AAA41.44,0,A4
,0
?7 -- tf?.-
Approved For I3elease 2001/09/03 : CIA-RDP84-00709R000gou070019-2 ---
OGG Has Reviewed _
Assistant Z:h:efe 13-id.et and Finance
r' n tnr ,A7neral Comsel
D1,ve78 Licerse roes
3/ DoceRber 1948
1. Your ncr.kor andum of 21.._ December 1943 prest,:nted:the qur:stion
rtim_.rricricnt to a ,irv ernz.ent employee ,ftw the expense, of obtain,.
ing 4 drivers liconlm in connection with 4overnment o*ped resmonger
vec1efor official Oust-m.3P.
2. an opnion datzd1==larch 190 1,24 (3 (ow. Gene 663) the
Cozntrt-11r ueni=ral statcd trlat;
'The far:ilittes of the 7cdtral Uovtrnment art noth Subject
to loc4 state ordinances or razu1at4ons roxi where such an
cr.:114..nc* pr relation of a munic1pk1 fire dopertMelnt requires
tnat a prAtrit e obtairel for trio operation of a gatoZine pump,
? if.r7.it to be issued upon examinction and p4yment_of,a fees
a 1.ftra1 c7plo:7- es wtowe official Iutiwt, requIreJhe Operation
0, Yederal ,;asoline pumps is not rewired to stand theexaxin?
? or to pay the ',Le.*
-
Thc Immunity of tlre Fcdr.ral .Zioveroment frau Interference by a state
or =1-ri,;Ifikt1Ity is l'estd 'm the docition in Jonson v. larylande
254 5,1. That was a case wiligh an rtplOyee of the Test Office
Departnenty t1c drivin& a mail truck, vas arrested, triode:convicted
and fincH for not kostssLat; a Uar7lan4 driver's license?:Tha cquiFt
denied 4.nr power or the nate of Maryland to require am:emplOyee of
the ied,rral ...lovernment to submit to an examination or to pay a 1Iense
fee bort performin his official dutier In obedience to or-dem. In
derryin Lit the tate ha 4 arch powers the court said: :
nSuon a requirenent does not minrely touch the Government
servants remotely uy a 6eneral rule of conduct; it lAys hold of
thm in their specflic attemptto obey orders and reqnires
quaLrications in addition to those that the :.cover-nrsent has
prcrle.inced sufficient. It is the duty of the Depart*ent_to
trpley persona set4ete1t for their work and that duty it-mnat
ue ;_ra,sumed has Oeen IM1formed."
The rile, uf courses applien equally to a municipality itioh is ales-
&Er unit cf the state. The Comptroller deviated from a firm poultf.one
nowver, and stated that even it the employeeb.were required,to obtain
the permits and pay the necessary fens the req reit would be A
perseml cnI:ense incidental to their qcallfitation for work and reile?-?
Uursenent from appropriated funds would not beLauthori%ed. This
compromi:T 2421= to indicate at the least a lack of certatstrin the
reasoninc uenind this opinion. In 15 Cealp. a!an. !j1.9, tho fi-cptrion
was confLrme and the qualification of the'expftwe ts aOers*a2,:ornu *
to the ez7.1.1otee vms restated. (Actuagtit in this case,_the orseiles was
. .
Approved For Release 2001/09/03 : CIA-RDFr84-00709R00u4u0sioOlu-z 7- 4;
?
Approved For Reese 2001/09/03 : ClgiRDP84-00709R000400070019-2
allasec az a matter of reimbursement, but only. because -the emplo,lite
vas a member of the Civilian Connwrration Corps and the. Ccreptroalur
reasoned that the c7ployment VAS largoly in the ,nature of relief and
to deny paynv:nt oi the chare vould oontrovart? the nature of the
erployment itself.) The saL13 1Loe of resacininc wags followed in V,
i. 769 - t with better Justine...lion where reimburoatazht
or the Lost or a charftear's lizenne Dor an maiployee of a CPPF contractor
vas dez,ied. The Comptroller tk.:*,n VelttlOt_the expense vets persorsal to
the ctplo;ae as in incident to his employMatnt.' The Cdoptroller's manner
or think-Inc is somewilat clarified by .ii *Anion in 25 Comp. tien.,10,
where pevisalt or a license:exeml.tiog the purchaser ortael froi1*r-
mere. cf state tux was allowed, :7.11 a previoue doolaion (21 Comps Jen.
a43) hoat e-,f.ded that the federal tiovvirnmont eras liable for estate
fuel tax C.nce the State had ,the right to doctide on vheri the it4dente ?
of .the tax leariall rall, an the!nate heitileCided thati.t tell un
the wndor rather than the CorlernmPnto .:Et Vass therefore strUgitimats
chaT,c ;.ot dLrectlr interferin with the fbnction of the CioVerrmant, mince
it was not a tax Lxat a cot.dition under which a privilege:wee-extruded._
3. Your association of this probiem:to that of the paymant of
mctert,d parkinc space appears to ae perfectly correct in vie*? of the
itot that, the answers to both problems sterA Prom the interpretation
of sovereign immunity 4:.eiven by the Suprepp Court .tri thAnson Varyland.
If Joh]iunn V. Maryland is to oe followed to its tatisate:doducticn, -
there wo.112 seta to be no doubt about the employeest iamunity frail ptAym.
of the liesnst fest while driving a tiovornment vehicle in thc
course of his official dAios. The C om*roller has evadod.,0 Ofinite
stoma 1.4nne; thit line, however, nod has refused pawner* .on-the basis
that puyrzent of the tee is an element of the enploymefsigualificatiOn?
for ..1,1t;c. iathouL:h this does rot appear to be particularily sound,
it Is awvertheless the fat art ::*.stxtoursement of the cherg, cannot be
sathorivvd.
25X1A
Approved For Release 2001/09/03 : CIA-RDP84-00709R000400070019-2