private timberland owners to clean up infestations on their lands; they maintain a field station at Ashland, Oreg.-which is not very far from this region-where those studies have been concentrated, and they have worked at the research end of this problem pretty effectively; at least I am satisfied from the demonstrations they gave us on one of our national forests in the State of California that money expended for this purpose is well spent. We had a situation there corresponding to this situation and it has been effectively and successfully handled under their methods. That is as much of a demonstration as I would need. The private owners who are involved are also satisfied that the control of this danger is feasible, that it is a wise expenditure from their standpoint and they are ready to go ahead.

Mr. KELLEY. The point I had in mind was this, that you have fixed your salaries and everything upon the basis of a full year. Now, I judged from your discussion that you would begin the work, the preliminary steps having already been taken by another bureau, about the 1st of April and that it would run through April, May, June, July and August, and then the work would be cleaned up, so that I should think a six months' appropriation, based on the figures you have submitted, would cover the time when you could handle these insects.

Col. GREELEY. The rates of pay are figured on an annual basis. The temporary laborers, of course, would be employed during a comparatively short portion of the year. Just as soon as this appropriation is made, if it is made, it will be necessary to begin the preliminary work, because this whole proposition has got to be carefully organized in cooperation with the private owners whose lands are involved. Men have got to be immediately assembled and instructed in the work of selecting the infested trees; places for the location of camps have got to be selected, and we really ought to be at work on it now, and just as soon as the money becomes available the work will begin. It is true that the heavy expenditure will cease with the latter part of next summer.

Mr. KELLEY. I judged from what you said that you could not tell so very well what trees were infested until the leaves come out. Col. GREELEY. These are all evergreens.

Mr. KELLEY. These are pines?

Col. GREELEY. Yes.

Mr. KELLEY. So that you could even start now?

Col. GREELEY. We could start that work just as soon as the money becomes available.

The CHAIRMAN. How did you reach the rates of compensation that are set out here?

Col. GREELEY. They are based upon the prevailing rates paid by the Bureau of Entomology and by the Forest Service for work of comparable responsibility and comparable technical requirements. The CHAIRMAN. Do you know anything about this limitation:

That no part of this appropriation, except necessary expenditures for preliminary investigations, shall be expended unless the States of Oregon and California, or the owners of pine timber land adjacent to or intermingled with lands owned or administered by the United States shall have satisfied the Secretary of Agriculture that the insect infestations on said adjacent and intermingled lands will be abated, in accordance with State law or voluntarily by the owners of such lands, to the extent necessary in the judgment of the Secretary of Agriculture to protect the timber on lands owned or administered by the United States from reinfestation.

Col. GREELEY. Yes, sir; that is simply a limitation to protect the expenditure of the Government funds from the same standpoint that the private owners demand protection in the expenditure of their funds, that is, to do this work successfully the whole area must be cleaned up at once, and if the private owners should for any reason fail at the last minute to clean up their lands it would be useless for the Government to go ahead and spend money on its holdings. That is the reason for that limitation.

Mr. SISSON. If I may I would like to ask a question: I do not want to interrupt anybody, but following Mr. Wood's inquiryand I really would have liked to have this go in the record at that point you have told us that you get rid of the larvae that produces the bug, but what do you do with these bugs that are left? How do you destroy them, the bugs that lay the eggs!

Col. GREELEY. Well, you see, at that time of the year the whole tribe is in the larvae stage.

Mr. SISSON. Do not any of them live over?

Col. GREELEY. After the adults lay the eggs they die.

Mr. SISSON. That was not apparent from your earlier answers. Col. GREELEY. I am not a scientific entomologist or anything like it. Mr. WOOD. What is the life of one of these bugs just one season? Col. GREELEY. I think it is just one season. May I ask that the language of that item be changed so as to make the amount available for the fiscal year 1923 as well as to be immediately available?

The CHAIRMAN. That is legislation. If we limited it to December 31, 1922, would that answer?

Col. GREELEY. I think that would meet the situation.

The CHAIRMAN. That would give you an entire year to do your work. I do not know what the committee will finally do about it, but if December 31 suits you we will consider that.

Col. GREELEY. I think if it can be made available until December 31, 1922, it it would meet the situation.

The CHAIRMAN. We will consider that.

CLAIM OF QUINCY R. CRAFT.

Col. GREELEY. You have an item in reference to the accounts of Quincy R. Craft.

The CHAIRMAN. Those items are not properly before us; they are claims and have no business here. The only way you can reach that question is to go before the Committee on Claims, because we have no jurisdiction.

Col. GREELEY. Will this item be referred to the Committee on Claims?

The CHAIRMAN. No; you will have to take it there. It will have to go to Congress in the form of a bill.

Col. GREELEY. A special bill?

The CHAIRMAN. Yes. This is subject to a point of order under the rules of the House.

Col. GREELEY. Have there not been a good many of these items carried in deficiency bills?

The CHAIRMAN. I think there have but under the new rules of the House or under the budget system the House is inexorable in its

determination not to permit this sort of practice and the committee is trying to conform to the attitude of the House.

Col. GREELEY. It is just a case of two different interpretations of the same law by two different lawyers.

The CHAIRMAN. That very often happens.

Col. GREELEY. The solicitor of our department ordered this bill paid but the Comptroller of the Treasury disallowed it.

The CHAIRMAN. We really are not in a position to take it up.

PROTECTION OF OREGON AND CALIFORNIA RAILROAD LANDS AND COOS BAY WAGON ROAD LANDS.

Col. GREELEY. All right, sir. Do you wish me to say anything with regard to the deficiency for the protection of the Oregon and California grant lands?

The CHAIRMAN. If you know anything about it.

Col. GREELEY. The original appropriation of $25,000, subsequently increased to $30,000 by a deficiency item, was made to the General Land Office in the Interior Department for the protection of approximately two and one-third million acres of land in the revested Oregon and California grant. The Department of the Interior for a number of years has requested the Forest Service to disburse this fund and they have requested me to speak of it to the committee, since the Forest Service is primarily responsible for the expenditure of this money.

The original Oregon and California railroad grant embraced the odd sections within the strip of country defined by that purple line findicating on map]. Upon the revesting of that grant in the United States, the problem of protecting the timber became an important one pending the final disposition of the land. As you will note from the lines indicated on this map, a portion of the granted lands were within the boundaries of national forests, but a much larger portion is outside of those boundaries, although most of it is within a belt of country that is largely forest in character and intermingled with private timber holdings. At the request of the Interior Department the Forest Service undertook the expenditure of this fund for the protection of the granted lands, the revested lands, since we were maintaining a field protective organization in a portion of this region. In the interest of economy in the expenditure of this fund the work has been handled in this fashion: On all of the areas in the vicinity of national forests the lands have been protected by additional guards employed under the direction of our own local forest supervisors: away from the national forests, where that method was not practicable, the protection of these lands has been put under the charge of the local protective associations created in the State of Oregon and recognized by its laws, and they have protected these lands in common with their own. The original amount of $25,000 proved inadequate on account of the number of forest fires and the enormous extent of the lands involved, and they are of a spread out character.

NOTE. In 1918 it was necessary for Congress to provide for a deficiency of $10,000 over and above the $25,000 item, and in 1920 to provide for a deficiency of $14,110 in addition to the regular $25,000 item. The $25,000 was insufficient for 1921, and early in the spring a deficiency was requested of $10,156. This was based upon expenditures already incurred, past experience and approved plans for fire protection to and

including June 30, 1921. For some unknown reason this item was cut in committee to $5,000 and passed in that amount. The expenditure necesary to protect the public property, however, exceeded our estimates by $356.17. The total amount expended for the protection of these lands during the fiscal year 1921 amounted to $36,512.17, of which amount $6,512.75 is an actual deficiency which has been incurred to date. This money has been paid out.

The CHAIRMAN. That occurred during the last fiscal year?

Col. GREELEY. Yes, sir. That money was paid out by the private protective associations in the State of Oregon, who assumed, under an arrangement with us, the protection of a portion of these lands. The CHAIRMAN. This was a contract obligation?

Col. GREELEY. It was a contract obligation and the Government stands debtor to these associations to the extent of the amount named in the items. That is the basis of the request for a deficiency appropriation.

The CHAIRMAN. Do they render bills to the Government for this work?

Col. GREELEY. Yes, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. And those bills have been audited?

Col. GREELEY. The bills have been audited and approved for payment subject to the procurement of funds. The expenditure, including this deficiency item of $6,512.17, represents an actual outlay of a little less than 16 mills per acre for the area protected, which is not an exhorbitant amount in comparison with the legal requirement in the State of Oregon of 5 cents per acre as a maximum expenditure, and in comparison with an average expenditure in the private lands adjoining these O. and C. holdings of about 3 cents per acre. In my judgment there is no doubt but what the work was effectively done by these private associations.

The CHAIRMAN. Do you have in advance a contract with them for a stipulated amount?

Col. GREELEY. It is an agreement reached with them under which the amount can not be stipulated exactly, but under which the Government assumes a proper pro rata share.

The CHAIRMAN. Can you contract with a citizen or with a corporation in excess of the amount of the appropriation?

Col. GREELEY. No, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. Would this come within that prohibition?

Col. GREELEY. Not the form of agreement which we make which has been approved by our solicitor as legal, since its wording makes payment by the Government subject to the appropriation of funds by Congress. If a legal obligation does not exist, I would put it on the basis of a moral obligation.

The CHAIRMAN. Of course, this committee has no jurisdiction over moral obligations. From my standpoint, judging by the law, this would have to go to a committee that would have jurisdiction to report a bill where a legal obligation did not exist. I doubt if we would have that authority.

Col. GREELEY. Well, is it necessary for this committee to view it from that standpoint? There is no question but what the appropriation is authorized. Two deficiency appropriations have been made for this item in previous years under exactly similar circumstances and one has already been made by this very committee. Mr. Wood. You say this appropriation is authorized?

Col. GREELEY. Oh, yes; it is an appropriation that has been made for a number of years.

Mr. Wood. That is, the general appropriation, but there has been no appropriation authorized for carrying out specifically this contract arrangement you have made?

Col. GREELEY. No; no contract mentioning a contractual relation of this character.

The CHAIRMAN. Suppose you had not contracted with these people, would you feel it was incumbent upon you to furnish this service?

Col. GREELEY. Yes, sir; it is just what the law contemplated. The law contemplated that these lands should be protected. We had the option of putting in a special service of our own, apart from the national forests, or of making this arrangement with a local protective organization.

The CHAIRMAN. Would it have cost more or less to have done this work with a separate organization?

Col. GREELEY. It would have cost materially more to have maintained a separate service of our own.

Mr. SISSON. Did not the people with whom you made the contract understand the amount of money you had on hand or the amount appropriated for this purpose?

Col. GREELEY. They undoubtedly knew the amount of the appropriation; yes, sir.

Mr. SISSON. Then they are particeps criminis in making a contract in open violation of the law. There is another statute which provides specifically you can not do that. One statute authorizes this committee to make the appropriation. After that appropriation is made for the fiscal year, that statute is satisfied. Now, there is another statute that specifically prohibits the making of a contract on the part of any of the agencies of the Government beyond the amount of the appropriation. If that statute was not in existence, the mere authorization for making the contract would mean that the Government could not, through its Congress, control the appropriation, and the appropriation would be controlled by the men who want to spend the money.

Mr. BYRNS. Is not this case on all fours with other deficiencies? Here is a proposition that is authorized by law. Congress made an appropriation of only $25,000 which was insufficient to afford the protection. Now, they have expended more than the amount appropriated by Congress just as in the case presented a while ago with reference to the protection of national forests where he spent over $191,000 more, I think, than Congress authorized by its appropriation. It seems to me this is on all fours with any other deficiency. The CHAIRMAN. It might make some difference according to what their understanding was.

Mr. SISSON. Of course, if that were the law, there would be no necessity for this committee to act or for any committee of Congress to act, and all they would have to do would be simply to turn them loose and let them spend what they please and draw whatever they want out of the Treasury.

Mr. BYRNS. I understand that, but I was simply calling your attention to the similarity between this proposition and the other proposition where $191,000 was actually expended which Congress never authorized to be expended.