ÆäÀÌÁö À̹ÌÁö
PDF
ePub

The CHAIRMAN. What disadvantage do we have from the fact that when South American people come here to trade we have nobody in the houses in which they would like to trade who can speak their language?

Mr. CARREL. We have some disadvantage in that respect, but we find that most of the houses that have business relations with LatinAmerican countries have people who speak their language in the home office. There is another very peculiar thing, and that is that many of the South American people speak more languages than we do. You will find that most of the leading business men there, and particularly the educated ones, speak English.

The CHAIRMAN. I have asked these questions, which seem not to be at all related to the subject, for the purpose of reaching a conclusion as to whether or not the expenditure of this $1,000,000 was calculated to in anywise enlarge our trade.

Mr. CARREL. I think it will have that effect.

The CHAIRMAN. And whether there was any obstacle in the way of the enlargement of our trade. While the questions may have seemed to be outside of the scope of the appropriation, they were asked for the purpose of getting a little better viewpoint.

Mr. CARREL. I see no obstacle in the way of expanding our business in South America. That is, provided we give proper attention to our business in South America, which is quite as essential there as proper attention to business anywhere else or at home.

The CHAIRMAN. It is your judgment that the expenditure of this $1,000,000 will lead to the creation of a better sentiment?

Mr. CARREL. By all means.

The CHAIRMAN. You would not say that business is done as a matter of sentiment, would you?

Mr. CARREL. It is to a large extent in those countries. As a matter of fact, you can do business better with a man here if you know him well, and know his relatives, and can be on intimate terms with him.

Mr. BYRNS. Another viewpoint is, whether, if it is not allowed, it will have the effect of proving rather a stumbling block.

Mr. CARREL. I believe lack of proper attention to the opportunity now presented will have a very bad effect.

Mr. SISSON. The farther south you go the more business is done upon the basis of sentiment. You have made an estimate here of $25,000 for a site. How do you arrive at that, or what information have you as to the cost of a site? You must have had some guide in making the estimate.

Mr. CARR. As we explained a moment ago, we had no data in regard to this exposition upon which to compile those figures. They are conjectural.

Mr. SISSON. Of course, if you start off with the idea that you will pay the Brazilian Government or somebody down there $25,000, they will be ready to take it, because I presume that those people down there have business sense. Unless you have some information or some knowledge that they are going to want an enormous sum like that for the rent of property we ought not to figure on that. We might find out from the ambassador here or from somebody who represents that Government what their plans are going to be.

Mr. CARR. If you will notice, we have asked for this appropriation in lump sum, and we do not propose to do anything in the way of obligating expenditure until we get all the facts. We do not propose to begin spending the money until we know what we are spending it for and that we are spending it economically.

Mr. SISSON. If you are going in for an exposition, we ought to save all the money possible on these overhead charges.

Mr. CARR. Yes, sir.

Mr. SISSON. So as to make the best possible showing.

Mr. CARR. The effort, of course, should be made to get the best possible exhibit, and if there is any economizing to be done, we should economize on things that do not enter into the exhibit.

BUILDING SITE.

Mr. SISSON. If you gentlemen have any information or intimation about the site, I should like to know it. Like the chairman, I was very much surprised when I found that you had an item of $25,000 for a site.

Mr. CARR. We do not know about that yet, but we just assumed that it might be necessary.

Mr. CARREL. That provides for the acquisition and preparation of the site. We have heard that some of the sites will have to be leased. and it may be necessary to lease a part of the site. We do know that the ground is being prepared for the exposition and that on some of the exposition site there are a lot of squalid huts; a large amount of excavation work will have to be done and the site leveled off.

Mr. SISSON. I do not think they would be anxious to have us come if they should start out by saying to you, "We want you down here, but you will have to rent your space here on these grounds." I do not believe that was ever done at any exposition. I may be entirely in error about that, but I do not think so.

The CHAIRMAN. Would it be possible to avoid that feature of it? Mr. CARR. If it is possible to avoid it, it will be avoided, because we have no desire to spend money for a site.

Mr. BYRNS. I take it that if Great Britain is given a site and the other Governments are given sites, a site will be given to this Government?

Mr. CARR. I have no doubt of it.

Mr. BYRNS. We would insist upon having the same treatment? Mr. CARR. Yes, sir.

Mr. SISSON. So far as I am concerned, I want to voice my protest against going down there if the Government that invites us to participate in the exposition charges us for the space on which to place the exhibit.

The CHAIRMAN. I feel as you do about that.

Mr. CARR. On the other hand, I take it that if Congress should appropriate money for this exposition it would insist upon going in upon the same terms as other Governments.

Mr. SISSON. There is no objection to that, except this, that I would not want to go into any sort of affair where it would look too much like trying to make money out of us instead of making friends out of us.

Mr. CARR. There was one point I was interested in submitting, and that is that there are only nine months in which to get under way with the exhibit down there.

Mr. SISSON. You think you will need it all as one lump sum?

Mr. CARR. Yes, sir; we ought to know what amount is to be given us so as to know how to make our plans. Otherwise, we would have to go ahead entirely in the dark.

WEDNESDAY, NOVEMBER 16, 1921.

BOARD OF MEDIATION AND CONCILIATION.

STATEMENT OF JUDGE W. L. CHAMBERS, COMMISSIONER OF MEDIATION AND CONCILIATION.

The CHAIRMAN. Judge Chambers, we had the item in this bill which relates to the Board of Mediation and Conciliation up for consideration a few days ago, and in view of the fact that on the 4th of March, 1921, there was no appropriation made, it was understood that by reason of the failure of Congress to act, the Board of Mediation and Conciliation would close up its affairs, although, of course, we realize that the law has not been repealed. We would like very much to get such information as you may be able to give us as to what activities have been conducted since the Congress has failed to appropriate, and what obligations, if any, exist.

Judge CHAMBERS. Anticipating that that would probably be the intention or was the intention of Congress in not making the appropriation, and as soon as that fact became known to us, we arranged for a call on the President. I have the correspondence with me showing that. The President invited us on some day in April to confer with him. Judge Knapp, who is chairman of the board, Mr. Kluttz and myself, the other two members of the board, called at that time, and the President himself set another date at that conference about a week off when he wanted to go further into the subject. At that time the whole situation was disclosed to him and he was more or less familiar, having been a Senator, with the law and the work of the board; but he said he wanted to inquire more thoroughly into it, as he did not know what railroad legislation might be enacted by Congress, and that we should go on awaiting further orders from him. This board, as you know, is an independent institution, and reports directly to the President and is subject to his orders. We did that. We had only one case on at that time-the Atlanta, Birmingham & Atlantic case-and my assistant went immediately back down there to see if he could assist in the settlement of that controversy. You will recall, perhaps, if you are at all familiar with the history of that case, that the United States Railway Labor Board declined to entertain their petition, because they had not complied with some of the regulations of that board which had to be performed before they could take up the case. Then the employees requested action from our board. Receivership followed on the road, and the courts took possession of the operation.

Judge Knapp and I together called on the President the second time, Mr. Kluttz being in Georgia, and he asked us to continue. I told him I had a professional proposal to me which I wanted to be

able to answer as early as I could, and he said he hoped I would not leave the service at that time. Then the matter went on until after July 1, and on the 27th of July the board held a meeting and addressed to the President this letter, to which we received this reply from the President, in which the President practically asked us to withdraw that letter, or, rather, to write him another letter leaving out of it the resignations or any suggestions of resignations, and went on to state some personal views of his about the matter, and twice since then, as other correspondence here will show. I addressed the President to know what his further orders were. The President then asked me to present the matter to the Budget Director, which we did, and I have here the letter which I wrote to Mr. Dawes, and as I knew him personally I called on him, and he made the estimate that is before you now, as he informed us. and it has come to you, I believe, with the approval of the President. The CHAIRMAN. The thought, I am sure, which Congress had in mind when it failed to appropriate was that in view of the creation of the Railway Labor Board, which virtually took over all the activities of the Board of Mediation and Conciliation, although not in the same form, of course, there should not be two boards doing substantially the same work.

Judge CHAMBERS. You will recall, however, Mr. Chairman, that that question was debated on the floor of the House, and they declined to interfere with the law itself, which left the law in existence, and we have not taken a step in this matter except by direction of the President.

The CHAIRMAN. Your idea is that if this appropriation which is suggested should be made, that that would enable the board to clear up all the work it has on hand.

Judge CHAMBERS. Yes, sir; and I think we could do it in two weeks time, because we have gone on with the idea that this was going to occur.

The CHAIRMAN. And you think it is advisable to do that and close up the affairs of the board in an orderly way.

Judge CHAMBERS. It is certainly advisable to do that. I am not going to be with the board after this part of the work is done, but my own personal view after seven or eight years' experience in this work is that it is the best law we ever had on the subject, and that an appropriation of $25,000 for the year is the thing that Congress really ought to do. I so told the President, and he agreed to it. Whether he would appoint a successor to me or not is a matter, of course, I did not discuss with him.

Mr. ANTHONY. How long have you been on the board, Judge?

Judge CHAMBERS. Since its organization, and the law makes the commissioner a member of the board. There are two other members to be appointed by the President.

Mr. ANTHONY. In what year was the board organized?

Judge CHAMBERS. 1913.

Mr. ANTHONY. What State are you from, Judge?

Judge CHAMBERS. Alabama; but I have lived in Washington since 1895 except the four years I was chief justice of the International Court in Samoa, and I was abroad those years.

The CHAIRMAN. How did the Board of Mediation and Conciliation arrive at this figure of $8,000?

Judge CHAMBERS. Well, it will not take $8,000 now.

The CHAIRMAN. How much will it take?

Judge CHAMBERS. It will take $1,350 less than that, certainly, if we wind up by the 1st of December.

The CHAIRM MAN. I had figured out that it would take about $1.750 less.

Judge CHAMBERS. No; it will take about $1.350 less than that. I reckon you included rent in your estimate, which would make it just about that amount. We are paying no rent now because we are in one of the temporary buildings of the Government. According to my calculation it would take less than $7,000 of the $8,000 to wind up the matters now.

The CHAIRMAN. I figured it would take about $6,250.

Judge CHAMBERS. It will take a little more than it otherwise would because the amount that still remains to the credit of the disbursing officer-and we have no disbursing officer-goes back into the TreasWe turned in $18,000.

urv.

The CHAIRMAN. According to your view, $6,650 would cover all the obligations up to the 1st of December?

Judge CHAMBERS. I would have to make some calculation to answer that. We might not be able to wind up on the 1st day of December or on the 2d day of December, but we won't go a day beyond what is necessary. We are now turning over to the Department of Justice by degrees this matter, and it is an enormous job, because everything that the Government possessed in all of its departments bearing on this subject is now in our rooms, and when I took the subject up with the Attorney General he asked me if I would have made a catalogue, and it will practically be a book as large as this one indicating], being a catalogue of everything we have on the subject. It will be a very valuable asset to the Government, and we are sending in not only the documents but this inventory. I said it would probably take us a few weeks to complete the work; it may take a little longer, but we are not going to spend a dollar of the $8,000 that is not necessary. My calculation is that it will take some amount between $6,500 and $7.000.

The CHAIRMAN. According to the last statement you made, as I figure it. it will take $6,650.

Judge CHAMBERS. Yes, sir; it will take something like that.

WEDNESDAY, NOVEMBER 16, 1921.

COMMISSIONERS OF CONCILIATION.

STATEMENT OF MR. HUGH L. KERWIN, DIRECTOR OF CONCILIATION, AND MR. GEORGE W. LOVE, DISBURSING OFFICER— Additional.

RAILROAD AND TELEGRAPH EXPENSES OF NATIONAL RAILROAD LABOR BOARD.

The CHAIRMAN. You were here some time ago, but I think one item was overlooked.

Mr. KERWIN. Yes, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. It appears there is a deficiency of $2,500 for the year 1920 in connection with the activities of the commissioners of conciliation.

« ÀÌÀü°è¼Ó »