I think-have agreed to pay the extraordinary quota or are favorably disposed to the increase. It would hardly seem fitting that the United States, which took a very great interest in the beginning in the establishment of this institute, the prime mover in which was an American citizen, should fail to join the other Governments in maintaining the institute.

Mr. WOOD. I can understand how the people over there might profit by coming over here to study agriculture, but I do not see how we could profit much by going to Italy to study agriculture.

Mr. CARR. It is not going to Italy, Mr. Wood, it is rather going over the entire world, Italy merely being a center where agricultural information from all over the world is focused and is coordinated and there disseminated in the way of statistics and bulletins.

Mr. KELLEY. It is a sort of clearing house for agricultural statistics? Mr. CARR. A clearing house is precisely the word for it.

The CHAIRMAN. What practical advantage is it to the United States?

Mr. CARR. Our Department of Agriculture thinks it is of a great deal of practical advantage to know what the crops are all over the world, to know the statistics of prices, of production, of methods, and that kind of thing. Particularly I think they find it very desirable to know the extent of production everywhere. They have invariably advocated most strongly the support of this institute.

The CHAIRMAN. Is it of any advantage to our export trade in agricultural products?

Mr. CARR. In the way that it improves agriculture through publications of the methods found valuable in other countries, in the way it helps to put us in a position to compete with other agricultural nations, to know the current prices, extent of production, pointing out subnormal production and therefore markets for our products, it is of real advantage.

The CHAIRMAN. Are these statistics prepared sufficiently early to enable us to ascertain what the state of the crops in the various world countries may be so as to be able to take advantage of the information?

Mr. CARR. Since 1909 the Institute has been giving the Department of Agriculture monthly crop reports for the principal countries of the world. It makes monthly reports by wireless to the United States. The Department of Agriculture believes that as prices of staple crops are largely influenced by statistics of crop production throughout the world it is important to perfect and develop a system for supplying such information through the Institute. It should also not be overlooked that this additional contribution is really necessary to make serviceable the regular contribution which the United States is making.

NATIONAL SECURITY AND DEFENSE, 1918 AND 1919.

The CHAIRMAN. Your next item is for the national security and defense and for each and every purpose connected therewith, to be expended at the discretion of the President, $118,500.

Mr. CARR. The explanation of that, Mr. Chairman, is, in a general way, the explanation which I have already given to other items. During the war the President made allotments from the appropriation for the national security and defense, one allotment of $1,000,000 and the other allotment of $5,000,000, to be expended through the

embassy in Russia and the consul general over there in the purchase of foodstuffs and other articles to prevent their falling into the hands of the Germans. The purchases were made and the ambassador and consul general drew drafts on the Secretary of State for the amounts to be paid out and sold the drafts. Some of the drafts came in and some did not come in. We know there are outstanding drafts to the extent of $118,500 drawn on the Secretary of State that are going to be presented. Some of them have already been presented. The CHAIRMAN. Should not the years be enumerated here? Mr. CARR. I specified somewhere 1918 and 1919.

The CHAIRMAN. Is there a balance left unexpended in this original appropriation of $100,000,000?

Mr. CARR. Oh, yes, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. Has that been turned back into the Treasury? Mr. CARR. There was turned back of that $6,000,000 which was allotted for the purpose of purchasing foodstuffs and articles of that sort, $1,316,000. Of course, there was a great deal of the national security and defense appropriation that was not in this allocation and that was turned back into the Treasury, but of this allocation of $6,000,000 the amount of $1,316,000 was turned back, and, had those drafts been presented during the life of that appropriation, they could have been paid without question; but they were not presented and now we have no money with which to pay them when presented. We have some of them now. We have one, for instance, for $27,000 and we have another for $46,000 that are ready to be paid, but we have not any money with which to pay them.

The CHAIRMAN. They are included in this $118,500?

Mr. CARR. Yes, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. Will you be kind enough to make us a detailed statement of that?

Mr. CARR. I will be very glad to, and put in a list of the drafts, if you care to have it.

The CHAIRMAN. Yes; that is what I mean-showing in whose favor they are drawn.

Mr. CARR. Yes.

List of outstanding drafts drawn on the Secretary of State on account of Tovaro Obmien, trading house, Darcy, Marshall & Stevens, payable from the appropriation for the national security and defense for the fiscal years 1918 and 1919.

Drafts drawn by David R. Francis, ambassador to Russia:

No. 170, payable to M. Ter-Keverloff..

No. 171, payable to M. Ter-Keverloff.

No. 183, payable to T. Solavieff...

Drafts drawn by Dewitt C. Poole, jr., American consul at Moscow:

No. 25, payable to E. Kroll.

No. 26, payable to M. Kroll.

No. 27, payable to Packshmer & Co.

No. 35, payable to Tobei & Ikeda..

No. 37, payable to Constantine Babanin.
No. 50, payable to Julius Miller...
No. 52, payable to William B. Webster..
Unnumbered, payable to Antonoff.

Total....

$5,000

5, 000 2,000

5,000

5,000

5,000

27,000

10,000

5,000

46,000

3,500

118,500

ARBITRATION, UNITED STATES AND PERU.

The CHAIRMAN. Your next item is for the expenses of the arbitration between the United States and Peru, $45,000. Tell us about this item, Mr. Carr.

Mr. CARR. This is the arbitration of what is known as the Landreau claim which arose out of an agreement of the Government of Peru to grant certain awards to John Theophile Landreau, a French citizen, because of certain discoveries of guano lands made by him and disclosed by him to the Government of Peru, and contracts of April 6, 1859, and October 29, 1875, between the said John Theophile Landreau and his brother, John Celestin Landreau, a naturalized American citizen, whereby the former assigned to the latter a portion of his claim against Peru. By the contract of April 6, 1859, John Theophile Landreau, in consideration of a certain sum of money to be paid to him by his brother, assigned 50 per cent of his claim to John Celestin Landreau, but, by the contract of October 29, 1875, the amount of the assignment was changed to 30 per cent of the claim. The agreement of the Peruvian Government to reward John Theophile Landreau for his guano discoveries was confirmed by a decree of October 24, 1865, according to which Landreau was to receive payments ranging from 10 to 20 per cent of the value of guano extracted from the lands discovered by him. The Government of Peru was duly informed by the American minister at Lima of the agreement between John Theophile Landreau and his brother, John Celestin Landreau. In 1892 the Government of Peru made a contract of settlement with John Theophile Landreau, in which settlement an attempt was made to cut off the interests of the American citizen, John Celestin Landreau. The Government of Peru has contended that this settlement, to which John Celestin Landreau was not a party, was a release of the American interest in the claim.

By a resolution of February 20, 1880, the House of Representatives, on the strength of a report of the Committee on Foreign Affairs, requested the President to take such steps as in his opinion might be proper and in accordance with international law, to secure to John Celestin Landreau a final settlement and adjustment of his claim against Peru.

In 1881 the department suggested to the Government of Peru that the case be submitted to arbitration. In 1904 our legation again brought the matter to the attention of the Peruvian Government, which replied that it regarded the above-mentioned settlement of 1892 as concluding the matter. At the suggestion of Peru the claimant personally presented the matter to Peru in 1905, but no favorable action was obtained. The matter was again taken up in 1907 and in 1908, at which time the department stated that it would be pleased to receive from the Peruvian Government an offer of an adequate settlement, but Peru disclaimed any further liability, contending that the settlement of 1892 had concluded the matter. In 1909 the Government of Peru offered $50,000 in gold in settlement. which offer was rejected as inadequate. In 1912 a protocol was submitted to Peru, providing for an arbitration tribunal to sit in Panama. Peru submitted a protocol in reply, providing for arbitration at The Hague. In 1913 Peru submitted another protocol, which, however, was not acceptable to this Government.

The present protocol was drafted in reply to a protocol submitted by the Peruvian Government, under date of December 5, 1919. The protocol, a copy of which is hereto annexed, was signed at Lima, Peru, May 21, 1921.

Under the terms of the protocol the President of the United States appointed as the American member of the arbitral commission, Mr. Barton Smith, the Peruvian Government appointed Mr. Carlos A. Prevost, and they two selected as the third arbitrator Viscount Finlay of Nairn.

Mr. Frederick McKinney was appointed agent of the United States, and the case of the United States, prepared by him, was submitted to the Peruvian Ambassador in this city on September 19, 1921, under the provision of Article X of the protocol. According to the same article the answer of the Peruvian Government must be submitted to this Government within five months from the date of the presentation of the case of the United States.

Under Article IV of the protocol the arbitral commission is to meet in the country from which the third commissioner was chosen, viz, England, within 60 days after the case is ready for consideration, according to Article X of the protocol.

The CHAIRMAN. How much is the amount of the claim? Is it $45,000?

Mr. CARR. Oh, yes; it is about $2,700,000 plus interest. As a matter of fact, we hope that we will be able out of the proceeds to reimburse the Government for the amount it is putting into the expenses of the presentation of the claim.

Mr. WOOD. What has become of John Landreau?

Mr. CARR. He or his heirs are to get

Mr. WOOD. The balance?

Mr. CARR. The balance.

The CHAIRMAN. When this claim is adjusted, if it is adjusted in favor of the United States, is the amount that we provide for taken out of whatever allowance is made?

Mr. CARR. The Secretary's letter to the Budget officer contains the statement that in the event of a substantial award being obtained, it will be possible to deduct therefrom the expense incurred by the Government of the United States in the arbitration of the case.

Mr. BYRNS. There has never been any appropriation made in the years past for this purpose?

Mr. CARR. No; because we have never been able to get the Peruvian Government to agree to arbitrate. This case has been discussed for 40 years and Peru has not hitherto agreed to arbitrate.

The CHAIRMAN. Is this the entire expense of the arbitration or only our proportion of it?

Mr. CARR. This is our proportion of it.

Mr. KELLEY. If we lose, do we have to pay the expenses of both sides?

Mr. CARR. Oh, no; the protocol prescribes that each Government shall pay the expense of preparing its case and presenting it, and then the two Governments shall divide between them the expense of the arbitration; that is, the expense of the arbitrators and of the court. itself.

Mr. KELLEY. And whether we win or lose, we will have to pay this

amount?

76214-21-18

Mr. CARR. Yes. Of course, you will understand that some of these items of expense are only estimated. We do not know exactly whether all of this money will be needed. We do not think any more will be needed, but we can not tell whether all of it will be needed or not.

The CHAIRMAN. Have you a copy of the protocol here?

Mr. CARR. Yes; I have that here and I can put that into the record if you would care to have it.

The protocol referred to follows:

PROTOCOL FOR ARBITRATION OF THE LANDREAU CLAIM AGAINST Peru.

The Government of the United States of America and the Government of the Republic of Peru, not having been able to reach an agreement concerning the claim against Peru of the heirs and assigns of the American citizen, John Celestin Landreau, arising out of a decree of October 24, 1865, of the Government of Peru, providing for the payment of rewards to John Teophile Landreau, brother of John Celestin Landreau, for the discovery of guano deposits, and out of contracts between John Teophile Landreau and John Celestin Landreau entered into on or about April 6, 1859, and October 29, 1875, which claim is supported by the Government of the United States, have resolved to submit the question for decision to an International Arbitral Commission, and to that end have named their respective plenipotentiaries, that is to say, the President of the United States, William E. Gonzales, Ambassador of the United States at Lima, and the President of Peru, doctor Alberto Salomón, Minister of Foreign Relations, who, after having exchanged their full powers, found to be in due and proper form, have agreed upon the following articles:

ARTICLE I. The questions to be determined by the Arbitral Commission are: First. Whether the release granted the Peruvian Government in 1892 by John Teophile Landreau eliminated any claim which John Celestin Landreau, the American citizen, may have had against the Peruvian Government, and if all claims were not thereby extinguished then. Second. What sum, if any, is equitably due the heirs or assigns of John Celestin Landreau?

ART. II. The commission shall be composed of three members, as follows:

The Government of the United States and the Government of Peru shall each, within 30 days after this protocol becomes effective, appoint one commissioner, and these two shall, within 90 days after this protocol becomes effective, select a third commissioner, who shall act as president of the commission and shall be a national of either Denmark, Great Britain, or the Netherlands.

If at the termination of the 90 days' period just mentioned they are unable to agree upon a third commissioner, he shall be selected, within a further period of 30 days. by the Queen of the Netherlands, provided she is willing.

ART. III. All vacancies occurring from death, resignation, or otherwise, in the membership of the commission shall be filled as was the original appointment, within 30 days from the occurrence of such vacancy.

ART. IV. The commission shall, with the consent of the respective Governments, meet at the residence place of the president of the commission within 60 days after the case is ready for consideration, according to the second paragraph of article 10 of this protocol, and shall hold all of its sessions in the same place.

ART. V. The concurrent action of any two members of the commission shall be adequate for a decision on all matters coming before them, including the making of the final award.

ART. VI. The Government of the United States and the Government of Peru shall each be entitled to appoint an agent for the presentation and argument of its case before the commission.

ART. VII. The commission shall keep a record of all its proceedings. For this purpose the president of the commission shall appoint a secretary who shall be of his own nationality.

ART. VIII. In the presentation of its documents, evidence, correspondence, or arguments to the commission, either party may use the English or the Spanish language.

ART. IX. Either party may demand from the other the discovery of any fact or of any document deemed to be or to contain material evidence for the party asking it. Any document desired shall be described with sufficient accuracy for identification, and the demanded discovery shall be made by delivering a statement of the fact or by depositing a copy of such document (certified by its lawful custodian, if it be a