The CHAIRMAN. You do not know how much more you are asking in this estimate than you need?

Mr. WAGNER. According to our figures the estimate comes within a few thousand dollars of the amount we actually need.

Mr. BYRNS. As I understand it, a part of this estimate is based on what you anticipate will come in. In other words, you expect that other bills will be rendered?

Mr. WAGNER. No, sir; this is based on our reports.

Mr. BYRNS. I thought you said that your bills did not amount to $150,000 at this time.

Mr. WAGNER. We have not gotten all the bills, but the field reports for the year total that amount.

Mr. BYRNS. Totaling $150,000?

Mr. WAGNER. Approximately $150,000.

The CHAIRMAN. If you had not paid these increased salaries, would you be obliged to come here for the $150,000?

Mr. WAGNER. Yes, sir; because we spent our money for other things of an emergency nature.

COST OF INCREASES IN SALARIES.

The CHAIRMAN. How much did the increased salaries cost?
Mr. WAGNER. That was $370,100.

Mr. HUSBAND. Not the increases. You are including the additional salaries.

The CHAIRMAN. I am talking about the increase of salaries?

Mr. WAGNER. That was about $50,000.

The CHAIRMAN. Are those increased rates being paid now for these marine employees?

Mr. WAGNER. Yes, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. What rate of increase was granted?

Mr. WAGNER. $540 increase for pilots and $420 increase for engi

neers.

The CHAIRMAN. What percentage of increase would that be?
Mr. WAGNER. I should say about 20 or 25 per cent.

The CHAIRMAN. That occurred in September of last year?.

Mr. WAGNER. Yes, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. Was not that about the time salaries were going down everywhere?

Mr. WAGNER. It might have been; but so far as the unions were concerned, I do not think that it had any effect.

The CHAIRMAN. There has been an order issued by the Railroad

Labor Board to reduce the pay of railroad men 12 per cent.

notice been taken of that action by you people?

Mr. WAGNER. We have not yet taken notice of it.

The CHAIRMAN. Do you propose to take notice of it?

Has any

Mr. WAGNER. That is a question for the Commissioner General. Mr. HUSBAND. Does that cover all employees? I think the expenditures that Mr. Wagner referred to were for the marine employees and not for railroad employees.

The CHAIRMAN. He said that they were for marine employees.

Mr. WAGNER. The increases were made upon the basis of an award made by the Railroad Labor Board.

The CHAIRMAN. If the award of the Railroad Labor Board constituted the basis for the increase, is there anybody now to pay any

attention to the action of the Railroad Labor Board in decreasing such compensation?

Mr. WAGNER. I think so. I think we could very well take that feature up.

The CHAIRMAN. There ought not to be any question about that. Mr. HUSBAND. I might say that our present total obligation for that service is very greatly reduced, because we have laid off four pilots and four engineers. We have cut the marine cost at Ellis Island something over $100,000. We have laid up two boats, and while the salaries of those who remain are still high, the number of them has been greatly reduced.

The CHAIRMAN. Of course, the principle involved is the same.
Mr. HUSBAND. It is the same; yes, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. Is there anything else you can say about this estimate of $150,000?

Mr. WAGNER. We owe the money.

Even the vouchers were

Mr. HUSBAND. I will say this, that I inherited this when I came to the bureau. There was apparently a conference of the Appropriations Committee last spring, and Mr. Wagner and I came down. and asked for $488,531.53 to cover a deficiency. That was in part an estimate, because the bills were not in. not in. We did not know, but we thought it would be about that amount. Mr. Good asked, "How much have you in now"? Mr. Wagner said, "We have $336,000 actually in," and we got $336,000. Had we received the total amount asked for at that time we would not be here now. We were granted an appropriation for what was in sight, but not for what was in anticipation.

The CHAIRMAN. This is the rest of it?

Mr. HUSBAND. The rest of the $488,531.

Mr. BYRNS. Really the committee by its action saved something, because if this is allowed, you will have received $486,000.

Mr. HUSBAND. We could not show that we needed all of it at that time, but they gave us what we could show.

DEFICIENCY FOR 1922.

The CHAIRMAN. Why do you have this total of $300,000 for 1922? Mr. HUSBAND. The $300,000 for 1922 occurs this way: The bureau last year asked for an appropriation of $6,000,000 for the present. year, and received $3,000,000. Admittedly $6,000,000 was a very extravagant estimate, but $3,000,000 would hardly keep the machine running as it ought to run. Two years ago, I think, an appropriation of $1,000,000 was made for the deportation of anarchists, or radicals. Last year we had the benefit of some $380,000 that was a balance from the previous year and that was reappropriated for deportation purposes last year, in addition to the regular appropriation. Our expenditures last year were upwards of $4,000,000, or about $3.800,000. A considerable part of that was for the deportation of 4,517 people. Now, this year out of the $3,000,000 that was given to the bureau we were able to segregate for transportation only $150,000. That was to cover the deportation and maintenance, as I understand it, all of our transportation expenses including the deportation of aliens. We have started out this year deporting more people than we did last year.

NUMBER OF PERSONS DEPORTED.

The CHAIRMAN. How many are on your list?

Mr. HUSBAND. We have deported up to date 1,513 people, which would, if carried out at the same rate during the remainder of the fiscal year, bring the number to more than 4,500 people. We have in sight a few more than 1,200 aliens who are to be deported because they are in institutions.

The CHAIRMAN. Held in institutions?

Mr. HUSBAND. Not by us.

The CHAIRMAN. They are convicted of crimes?

Mr. HUSBAND. Yes, sir; and insane people and people who have become public charges. As I say, there are about 1,200 of them in institutions. We have $150,000 for the whole year, and we have already spent in the last three months $76,000 for the transportation item alone. We have not enough to do the deportation work. I will say that we are working very carefully and we are not incurring any expense for the deportation of people unless it is necessary. The law provides in section 23 that there shall be periodical examinations made of various penal institutions, insane asylums, and charitable institutions in the country for the purpose of finding aliens. That has not been done since 1908, and we would like very much to go over the whole situation and make a survey. That is better than it used to be, because certain institutions, particularly in certain States, are reporting the aliens there. That does not mean that they can be deported, because there are lots of strings to the deportation of aliens. I would like to send some of our officers to those institutions to go through them, and if we find people who should be be deported, we would like to deport them.

APPORTIONMENT OF 1922 APPROPRIATION.

The CHAIRMAN. Will you put a statement in the record, or give it to us now, if you have it, showing how you apportioned the $3,000,000 appropriated for 1922, showing the amount that was apportioned for transportation in connection with the deportation of aliens unlawfully in the United States, and for all the other purposes?

Mr. WAGNER. We set aside $150,000 of that sum for transportation. The CHAIRMAN. Give us the apportionment of the entire amount. Mr. WAGNER. We secure reports just before the end of the fiscal year from our 24 immigration districts. We ask them how much they would require to operate their respective districts for the year. They estimated the amount required for contingent and miscellaneous expenses for transportation, etc., and then we took the amount that Congress gave us and apportioned it according to what we thought we could afford to give them.

The CHAIRMAN. Do you make that calculation upon the basis of the appropriation or upon the basis of their estimates of their needs? Mr. WAGNER. We make it upon the basis of the appropriation. For instance, they asked for one-third more than we gave them this year.

The CHAIRMAN. In making that apportionment you apportioned the $3,000,000 appropriated?

Mr. WAGNER. Yes, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. And not $4,000,000?

Mr. WAGNER. No, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. Have you got the figures of that apportionment? Mr. WAGNER. As to each district?

The CHAIRMAN. Showing how you apportioned the $3,000,000.

Mr. WAGNER. Yes, sir; I can give you that. We allotted the money to 24 districts, and then we had a number of items charged to administration. For instance, district No. 1 said that it would require $45,000 to operate the service for the year.

The CHAIRMAN. What is district No. 1?

Mr. WAGNER. That is the Montreal border. $38,000.

We gave

them

The CHAIRMAN. How does that compare with the rate of expenditure?

Mr. WAGNER. That is less than they would expend ordinarily. That request was based on the yearly expenditure of the previous year, which was $45,000. When they said that they needed $45,000 for 1922 that was their estimate based upon the previous year's expenditures. We gave them $38,000 and told them that they would have to stay within that. Then we went right down the line and followed the same plan as to each of our immigration districts. The CHAIRMAN. Give us the numbers and locations.

Mr. WAGNER. To the commissioner at Boston we allotted $27,000. He had asked for $40,000.

The CHAIRMAN. What is his monthly rate of expenditure?

Mr. WAGNER. That I can not say. It fluctuates, and one month he might have very heavy expenditures for supplies and contingent items and in the next month a much lighter expenditure. There is no way of telling that in advance.

The CHAIRMAN. Do you keep track of their monthly expenditures, or do you let them run wild?

Mr. WAGNER. We have monthly reports in which every item of expenditure is reported.

The CHAIRMAN. Does that come in at the first of the month?

Mr. WAGNER. The reports are supposed to come in about the 15th of the month, but they are usually a month behind, because we have a station at Honolulu, one at San Juan, one at Ketchikan, Alaska; one at San Francisco, one at Portland, Oreg.; and one at Seattle. They take 10 days to prepare their figures, and it is sometimes as long as 10 or 15 days coming in.

The CHAIRMAN. What do you do with those reports; analyze them? Mr. WAGNER. Yes, sir. We consolidate them and enter them on our books.

The CHAIRMAN. When they are running over the amount of the allotment, what do you do?

Mr. WAGNER. We call their attention to the fact.

The CHAIRMAN. Is that all?

Mr. WAGNER. We also endeavor to find out why they are spending so much money. Then if it appears that the expenditures were absolutely necessary and could not be avoided, at the end of the first quarter, or the second quarter, we go over the allotments of all the districts and see what districts are not spending as much as we allotted. Then we readjust our allotments and submit same to the Secretary for his approval. The Secretary will go into the matter and if he approves it, the reallotments are made.

The CHAIRMAN. What does the Secretary do when it goes to him? Does he simply take your statement for it and sign it?

Mr. WAGNER. I can not say that. I send the memorandum to the commissioner general, who refers it to the Secretary.

The CHAIRMAN. Give us your allotments to the other districts. Mr. WAGNER. To Ellis Island we allotted $225,000; to the New York Chinese office, $1,300; to Philadelphia, $20,000; to Baltimore, $2,000-I might say that they estimated $7,500, but we made a saving in that by closing up certain quarters, and cut down their allotment to Norfolk we allotted $15,000: to Jacksonville, $5,500; to New Orleans, $9,000; to Galveston, $5,000; to Cleveland, $3,500; to Chicago, $9,000; to Minneapolis, $1,600; to St. Louis, $7,000; to Denver, $2,000; to Helena, $2,000; to Seattle, $35,000; to Portland, Oreg., $2,800; to San Francisco, $60,000; to Pittsburgh, $4,500; to Ketchikan, $1,500: to San Juan, $1,500; to Honolulu, $5,500; to the El Paso district, $87,500; and to Portland, Me., $3,000. Of course, some of those districts have a number of substations, and that covers the substations as well as the headquarters.

The CHAIRMAN. It covers all the territory embraced within each district?

Mr. WAGNER. Yes, sir. That was the amount allotted to the districts, totaling $574,200.

The CHAIRMAN. What became of the other $250,000?

Where the
Then for

Mr. WAGNER. I will come to that now. We set aside $150,000 for transportation and $2,000 for the refund of head tax. head tax is erroneously collected, we have to refund it. contingent expenses here in Washington

The CHAIRMAN (interposing). What does that mean?

Mr. WAGNER. Rent for statistical machines used in connection with field work, etc. We maintain the machines here in Washington in order to tabulate statistical reports from immigration stations For the sake of convenience we call it a bureau contingent expense The CHAIRMAN. How much is that?

Mr. WAGNER. For that we set aside $5,500. Then for the travel expense of officers in Washington we allotted $4,000; $3,500 for field supplies, which were allocated to the department at the beginning of the year as provided in the sundry civil bill. Then there is the cost of telegrams from the field, which the companies bill direct to the department. We therefore charge this item to administration and set aside $3,000 for that. That totaled $178,000 more, which made $752,200. Then, at the beginning of the year, we had a salary obligation of $2,856,133.

The CHAIRMAN. What was that for?

Mr. WAGNER. That is the salary obligation of the entire Immigra tion Service. That is the force we employ to operate the service. The CHAIRMAN. Would not the allotments which you make include the allotment for salaries?

Mr. WAGNER. No, sir; we do not allot the amount for salaries to the districts. We charge that to administration and regulate it here from Washington, because the force is constantly changing. If we gave an officer at a certain station 10 employees he might think he would need those 10 employees all the time. We regulate the entire matter from here. The field officers report to us and demonstrate their needs, and the Commissioner General then passes on the ques