Mr. FLETCHER. No, sir. The secretariat, that is international, that is a part of the general expenses of the conference.

The CHAIRMAN. These are all experts?

Mr. FLETCHER. They are supposed to be, if we can get them.

Mr. KELLEY. Would you have authority, Mr. Fletcher, to pay the secretary of a commissioner who was not an official of the Government already?

Mr. FLETCHER. I would think so. I do not believe it is usual to pay the commissioners, men of the standing who would accept the position.

Mr. KELLEY. You think they would not be paid any salary?

Mr. FLETCHER. I do not think so. It might be that some might expect to have their expenses in Washington paid. If a man not in public life were appointed, it would be only fair to pay his expenses.

Mr. BYRNS. I take it that under the existing law, if someone was employed as secretary and at the time was drawing a salary from the Government, there would be no authority to pay him compensation?

Mr. FLETCHER. Exactly. When I prepared this I did not even know who would be the delegates.

The CHAIRMAN. There is an item in the paragraph, in line 7, on page 3, "including personal services in the District of Columbia, notwithstanding the provisions of any act"?

Mr. FLETCHER. That means this protection. Under that provision we can employ men here for special-agent work. Otherwise, we can not employ for personal services in the District.

The CHAIRMAN. In other words, you could not employ men to protect the lives of the visitors?

Mr. FLETCHER. Exactly.

The CHAIRMAN. This is to cover that?

Mr. FLETCHER. Yes, sir; so that we can employ men in the District of Columbia for this work.

The CHAIRMAN. Would it not be possible to use the Secret Service men in the Treasury Department or in the Department of Justice?

Mr. FLETCHER. I think that language should be left in because we can have our own men. The State Department has to take the responsibility for all of this. It simply means that we may use a lot of people here which, in view of the provisions of the act, we might not be able to do. It was to avoid raising that question.

The CHAIRMAN. The provision inserted by the Senate provides among other things "for the compensation of delegates or other representatives"?

Mr. FLETCHER. Yes, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. I understand that you do not propose to compensate the delegates? Mr. FLETCHER. Certainly that was my understanding; but I say it was drawn with the idea that we could compensate them if the circumstances seemed to indicate to the President that they should be reimbursed for their time and services to the Government in this connection.

The CHAIRMAN. That will not apply to any man in public life?

Mr. FLETCHER. I should say not; because they can not draw two salaries.

The CHAIRMAN. The words "expenses of transportation, subsistence," in line 9 refer only to the men who are to meet these delegates?

Mr. FLETCHER. Yes, sir; if I have to send a secretary over to meet them and see that they are shown through the customs and shown little courtesies that foreigners have a right to expect and which I think we ought to do.

Mr. BUCHANAN. Particularly, it ought to be done at this time.

The CHAIRMAN. If you bring a number of people to Washington to help conduct this conference, their total expenses would be covered by the compensation; you would not add to that the subsistence?

Mr. FLETCHER. No, sir. I would not expect, Mr. Chairman, to be held strictly to all of these figures. I may have to pay a little bit more under one item and a little bit less under another.

The CHAIRMAN. This estimate is based on two months?

Mr. FLETCHER. Yes, sir; as the duration of the conference. If it runs longer than that, we can not do it with this amount.

The CHAIRMAN. We are very much obliged to you, Mr. Fletcher.

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE.

STATEMENTS OF MR. RUSH L. HOLLAND, ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL; MR. CHARLES E. STEWART, CHIEF CLERK AND ADMINISTRATIVE ASSISTANT; MR. JOHN D. HARRIS, CHIEF DIVISION OF ACCOUNTS; MR. EDWARD M. KENNARD, ADMINISTRATIVE ACCOUNTANT; AND MR. S. KEY, ASSISTANT SUPERINTENDENT OF PRISONS.

CONTINGENT EXPENSES.

The CHAIRMAN. We have some items in this bill inserted by the Senate for the Department of Justice, submitted in House Document No. 104, which we would like very much to have somebody explain. Unfortunately the document did not come to this committee in time to have the explanation made before the items were inserted in the bill.

The first item is "Contingent expenses."

Mr. HOLLAND. Permit me to say, Mr. Chairman, in my behalf, that I have not got my seat warm in the department and this is absolutely new to me. I will not be able to be of much assistance to you. I am over here to get information rather to impart it.

The CHAIRMAN. Who is the man who will inform us?

Mr. HOLLAND. I think Mr. Harris and Mr. Stewart.

Mr. HARRIS. "For miscellaneous expenditures, including telegraph," etc; that is the miscellaneous item of the department. Those are ascertained claims for 1918, 25 cents, and for 1919, $5.91. Both of these items would have been paid had there been funds available-had the amounts not been turned back to the Treasury when they came in. I do not presume that you want the bills themselves?

The CHAIRMAN. No, sir; just explain the items.

Mr. HARRIS. "Detention and prosecution of crime," is the same way. Those are ascertained claims, for 1918, $564, and for 1919, $728.

Mr. KELLEY. The reason you did not pay them is that the money was returned to the Treasury?

Mr. HARRIS. Both of the bills reached the department after the money had been returned; that is, the bills had not come in.

Mr. HOLLAND. After what period of time do those funds return automatically to the Treasury?

Mr. HARRIS. After three years. We are disbursing now for 1920, 1921, and 1922. “Books for judicial officers" is the same, for 1918, $9, and for 1919, $3.

The next item, "Payment of costs taxed against the United States;" that is an item for costs that the department owes other than the appropriation for the business of the courts, and we are unable to pay that under the law except by action of Congress. That amounts, in effect, to a judgment against the United States.

The CHAIRMAN. The court rendered judgment against the United States for the costs?

Mr. HARRIS. For $116.30. Those items come in regularly.

UNITED STATES COURTS-FOR SALARIES, FEES, AND EXPENSES OF UNITED STATES MARSHALS AND THEIR DEPUTIES.

The CHAIRMAN. The next item is "United States courts."

Mr. HARRIS. Mr. Kennard, you had better take this.

Mr. KENNARD. This deficiency is practically ascertained definitely. We have to pay bills now in the hands of United States marshals for settlement amounting to approximately $67,000, and at least $5,000 additional will be needed for bills which have not been presented.

The CHAIRMAN. You have appropriations for this service amounting to $2,201,000? Mr. KENNARD. The total appropriation so far amounts to $2,201,000. The deficiency, of course, is very small compared with the total appropriation.

The CHAIRMAN. The $67,000 is ascertained to be due and the money is not available? Mr. KENNARD. Yes. A great many bills come in from time to time after the close of the year. We pay from this fund bills for the storage of seized goods whisky, automobiles, etc.-and for the upkeep of this property; also for the expense of destroying it when it is ordered destroyed by order of the court. The bills are not always promptly rendered.

The CHAIRMAN. Is there any way to keep within the appropriation for that purpose? Is there no way to control it?

Mr. HARRIS. As you will understand, this is business of the United Stated courts, and it depends largely upon the processes issued by the courts and the number of deputies necessary. We hold it down to the minimum. At the time of making these estimates, we were not able to ascertain definitely what the business of the courts would be, and this is what we will require in the way of an additional appropriation to keep up that end of the business.

The CHAIRMAN. It depends upon the volume of business done by the courts?
Mr. HARRIS. Yes, sir. This is due entirely to the volume of business done by the

courts.

Mr. KENNARD. I would like to make one illustration of the matter that Mr. Harris speaks of, although it is a matter of minor importance, comparatively: Ordinarily the expenses under this appropriation in the eastern district of Louisiana, for instance, are about $18,000 a year, but they were $23,000 for the first quarter of this year alone, and for the whole of this year they will be between $45,000 and $50,000. This is due to the fact that there was a general strike of railroad employees in which the Federal Government became involved, and it became necessary for the marshal to appoint from 50 to 100 special deputies to enforce the orders of the court.

Mr. HARRIS. The railroad was in the hands of a receiver.

The CHAIRMAN. Was that due to the enforcement of the prohibition act?
Mr. KENNARD. Not in this case; no, sir.

Mr. HARRIS. That was because the railroad company was in the hands of a receiver, and the court's orders had to be enforced. That required the appointment of the additional special deputies.

Mr. BYRNS. As I understand it, your ascertained deficiency in this item is $67,000? Mr. KENNARD. Yes, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. If we gave you the amount of the ascertained deficiency, would not that be sufficient?

Mr. HARRIS. No, sir; because we have requisitions coming in. There are requisitions that are not yet in, and we will want, in order to close up the business, $5,000 additional, and that amount for that purpose is not much. We will require that amount in order to close up the business and make prompt payments. We have a great many complaints from parties because bills are not promptly paid. Mr. KELLEY. You would probably have to come back for more?

Mr. HARRIS. Yes, sir.

Mr. KELLEY. It is probable that some of those bills will be coming in for the next two or three months?

Mr. HARRIS. Yes, sir; for the next six months.

Mr. KELLEY. Of course, the normal expenses will come in every month?

Mr. HARRIS. Yes, sir.

Mr. KELLEY. But where you have expense for storage, or for destroying some sort of property, those bills might not reach you for some little time?

Mr. HARRIS. That is true.

The CHAIRMAN. Is any part of this due to an increase in the number of permanent appointments to deputy marshalships in the offices of any marshals during the year? Mr. KENNARD. Of course, the enormous increase of court business has necessitated the employment of additional deputies to care for it.

The CHAIRMAN. Are there temporary appointees or permanent appointees?

Mr. KENNARD. Some of them are temporary and some are permanently appointed. The number of deputies at the opening of the year for which this appropriation was made was 731 and the number at the close of the year is 760.

The CHAIRMAN. Twenty-nine additional ones were appointed?

Mr. KENNARD. Yes, sir.

Mr. HARRIS. Sometimes the appointments are temporary and sometimes they are permanent.

FOR SALARIES AND EXPENSES OF UNITED STATES DISTRICT ATTORNEYS AND THEIR REGULAR ASSISTANTS.

The CHAIRMAN. The next item is for salaries of United States district attorneys and expenses of United States-district attorneys and their regular assistants. The appropriation for that purpose was $860,000 and you are asking for a deficiency appropriation of $29,000. How does that come about?

Mr. KENNARD. That, like most of the deficiencies in the court funds, is incident to the increase of the court business.

The CHAIRMAN. You have no way of controlling that, have you?

Mr. KENNARD. Part of it is in a measure under our control, and a part of it is not. The expenses for travel and subsistence which are paid out of this fund are specifically provided for at rates fixed by law.

The CHAIRMAN. And the amount must depend upon the amount of travel don ›? Mr. KENNARD. Yes, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. Under court orders?

Mr. KENNARD. Yes, sir; at times. In 1920, we spent about $85,000 for travel and subsistence, and there will be required at least $100,000 for this year. Of ourse, we have had to appoint a few additional clerks to the district attorneys, because the cases to be taken care of were rolling in by the hundreds. We had 271 clerks at the opening of the year, and we have 309 now, a few of which are temporary.

The CHAIRMAN. This is all made necessary by the increased volume of business. Mr. KENNARD. Yes, sir; clearly so.

Mr. KELLEY. Are prohibition activities responsible for this?

Mr. KENNARD. Very largely. We will probably have about 35,000 or 40,000 cases instituted this year under that act alone.

The CHAIRMAN. They are in addition to the cases that would ordinarily be before the courts?

Mr. KENNARD. Yes, sir..

Mr. BYRNS. In a general way, what does this language "expenses of United States district attorneys and their regular assistants" mean?

Mr. KENNARD. It means traveling expenses, telephone expenses, and telegraph expenses. Those are the three main items. The other expenses are small.

Mr. HARRIS. Something is required for emergency stationery once in a while, but that does not amount to much. Of course, we have this new automobile act, and that brings in quite a number of cases. Then we have Shipping Board or admiralty

cases.

The CHAIRMAN. Are those admiralty cases in the hands of the United States district attorneys?

Mr. HARRIS. Yes, sir; in large part. In some places where the business is extremely congested, where we have no admiralty experts, we employ special assistants to handle the cases, but the large proportion of them is in the hands of the district attorneys.

The CHAIRMAN. The general counsel of the Shipping Board was here a few days ago, and he stated that in most admiralty cases pending no definite provision had been made, as I understood him, for the defense of those cases.

Mr. HARRIS. We have them right along. We are paying them right along in the Department of Justice.

INCREASE IN NUMBER OF CASES.

Mr. KENNARD. I wish to make clear the fact that the number of criminal cases, or cases in which the United States must conduct the prosecution, which were pending at the close of the fiscal year ended June 30, 1921, was approximately eight times the number pending in 1912.

The CHAIRMAN. Most of the admiralty cases are in New York, are they not? Mr. HARRIS. In New York and also in Norfolk. There are quite a number in Mobile and New Orleand and in San Francisco.

Mr. KELLEY. Are these admiralty cases handled mostly by Shipping Board attorneys?

Mr. HARRIS. No, sir. They handle those cases that directly affect the board or the board's policy, but in the cases growing out of actual collisions, resulting in claims for damages, the rule is different, and those cases are laregly handled by attorneys of the Department of Justice.

The CHAIRMAN. In admiralty cases where damage occurs to ships, is the Department of Justice in a position to get the testimony of those who were present at the time of the accidents?

Mr. HARRIS. That is the idea of having these cases handled by the Department of Justice, because usually the United States district attorneys are located at the ports where the accidents occur. They immediately take the testimony and secure the names of the witnesses, and have a survey made of the vessels as soon as possible, so as to ascertain the damage.

The CHAIRMAN. Are you in a position to say whether, or not, in all such cases the testimony was taken at the time of the accident, and whether, or not, that testimony is available for use in the trial of the cases?

Mr. HARRIS. In all of the cases we do not know what has been done. In our division we handle the correspondence relating to such matters, and we authorize the employment of experts and have authority to confirm the employment of experts at reasonable figures for making those surveys. There might be some that never reach us, and that we do not know about, but so far as we now the testimony is taken at the time of the accident.

ADMIRALTY CASES GROWING OUT OF SHIPPING BOARD OPERATIONS.

Mr. BYRNS. Can you tell us how many admiralty cases you have growing out of Shipping Board operations?

Mr. HARRIS. We have not those figures now, but when we get this year's report we will have that information and can make a reasonably close estimate.

The CHAIRMAN. The Shipping Board stated that there were about 1,700.

Mr. BYRNS. It was stated by the Shipping Board that there were 1,700 such cases, in round numbers, and I was wondering whether the Department of Justice cared for all of those cases or for only a portion of them.

Mr. HARRIS. The reports are not all yet made, but as soon as the reports are in we can give you the exact figures or a reasonable estimate.

The CHAIRMAN. I wish you would do that. It might not be in time for this record, but if the committee has no objection to it I would be glad if you would make a complete statement of the admiralty cases that are pending, stating as nearly as you can the action that was taken at the time the accidents occurred and the condition of those

cases.

Mr. BUCHANAN. And whether or not the Government's side is being properly defended now by your department.

The CHAIRMAN. That is, whether this work is being done by counsel of the Shipping Board or by the Attorney General's office.

Mr. HOLLAND. It is my understanding that it is being done in part by the department and in part by the Shipping Board, but just what the line of the division of the work is I do not know. That is a matter that I am interested myself in trying to find out.

The CHAIRMAN. The reason I asked that question is this: Our information is to the effect that in most admiralty cases no evidence was taken at the time of the accident, and that there is consequently no record upon which to try the case. I may, perhaps, overstate that a little, but I do not want to go too far in that statement. For that reason we are anxious to find out as well as we can just what has been done.

Mr. HARRIS. We will prepare a statement covering that, and if we are not able to secure the information in time for insertion in this record we will hand it to you later. The CHAIRMAN. We will be very glad to have it for this record if you can prepare it in time.

NOTE. This information could not be procured in time to include same in this testimony.

Mr. KELLEY. Those admiralty cases grow out of Shipping Board operations, do they not?

Mr. HARRIS. Yes, sir.

Mr. KELLEY. If they grow out of Shipping Board operations, why do you handle a part of them and they a part of them?

Mr. HARRIS. If you will take, for instance, that special case in New York, involving the Pacific Mail Steamship Co., they are more familiar with that than the attorneys of the Department of Justice could be. They are better advised about that case. They would be better advised about litigation that grows out of their business and business policy. That is the class of cases that they would naturally handle, because they largely involve the policies of the Shipping Board, those being matters with which their counsel is familiar. However, other cases, where damage results from collisions, under the general statute are handled by the Department of Justice. That is under the statute which provides that the Department of Justice or the Attorney General shall furnish counsel to the other departments whenever needed. That is an old law. Just what is the organization of the Shipping Board, particularly with respect to counsel, I do not know.

Mr. KELLEY. As a result there must be considerable duplication in the gathering of testimony, and that kind of thing, as well as more or less confusion.

Mr. HOLLAND. I do not think there is any duplication. My understanding, from the very limited investigation that I have made, indicates that the Government is not in as good a position to investigate those admiralty cases as the claimants are. Mr. KELLEY. The Government is the defendant in nearly all those cases? Mr. HOLLAND. Yes, sir.

Mr. KELLEY. You have a certain body of investigators, and they might very well clean up all of those cases instead of picking out cases here and there.

Mr. HARRIS. Expert services are required in making the examinations, because of the technical knowledge that is required in order to ascertain the damage to the vessels. We do not have that class of experts regularly employed, but we have admiralty counsel, who are experts, so far as the law is concerned. The actual surveys are made by experts.