Mr. CARR. Yes.

Mr. ROGERS. Up to last year our quota was $85,000, and it ran last year to $100,000, did it not?

Mr. CARR. It ran last year to $100,000, upon the suggestion of the representatives of the member Governments to make that recommendation to all Governments, and the recommendation was made to this Government, and this Government provided its quota of $100,000.

Mr. ROGERS. I suppose nothing has happened to make it appropriate to reduce that amount to the original figure?

Mr. CARR. I think not, because one of the reasons why that was made was because of the increased expenses in running that organization.

INTERPARLIAMENTARY UNION.

Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Carr, you have not really contributed very much information in regard to this Interparliamentary Union. Is there anything more you can say on that item? What is the history of the appropriation?

Mr. CARR. The history of it is that an American group in the Interparliamentary Union, made up of members of the American Congress, was organized in the spring of 1904, on the initiative of Hon. Richard Bartholdt, a Member of Congress from Missouri, and ever since that time an American group has participated in the different conferences of the union. They had been having biennial conferences up until the war began. They held conferences at Paris, London, Rome, Berne, The Hague, Brussels, Budapest, Christiania, Vienna, and Geneva, and in 1904 Congress appropriated $50,000 for the expenses of a conference which took place in St. Louis, Mo.

The bureau is located in Brussels. There are 20 different countries which make annual contributions, according to the size and population of the different countries, for the maintenance of the bureau, including Great Britain, Germany, Russia, France, Austria, Italy. Spain, Japan, Turkey, Belgium, The Netherlands, Portugal, Hungary, Greece, Denmark, Sweden, Switzerland, Roumania, and Serbia. It is composed of members of the various parliaments of the world. The bureau at Brussels keeps a list of the various members and directs their formation, attends to the execution of the decisions of the council, and keeps documents concerning international arbitration as well as other documents of the union.

Mr. ROGERS. Do you know what the total budget is?

Mr. CARR. I do not have the details of the total budget, but there is a very complete history of the union in House Document 645, Sixty-second Congress, third session.

Mr. ROGERS. How long have we been appropriating this $2,000 a year for this purpose?

Mr. CARR. We used to appropriate $2,500, but in 1915 we reduced it to $2,000.

Mr. ROGERS. Was last year the first year in which we eliminated it from the act?

Mr. CARR. Last year seems to be the first year that that appropriation was eliminated. There was an appropriation in 1919.

Mr. BEGG. I want to ask you this question seriously: The league of nations is a fact in Europe, or will be. Will these other countries contribute to this organization, with the provisions as they are in the league of nations?

Mr. CARR. I do not know.

Mr. BEGG. It seems to me this is a wholly useless proposition if the league of nations functions.

Mr. CARR. No; I should not agree to that, because this is a union made up of representatives of the legislative bodies of the world, whereas the league of nations is a league made up of the Governments of the world.

Mr. BEGG. But if I understand the league of nations rightly, it takes absolute control of matters of peace and war in all countries that are members of the league for providing a satisfactory means whereby adjustments of conditions between nations must be handled. Mr. MASON. I have read the last report on that proposition, and I have read the covenant of the league, and I think your question is very timely, for my recollection is that all of the activities are provided for. I am very strongly for this Interparliamentary Union, but since you asked the question it does seem that all the activities provided for in this Interparliamentary Union are provided for in the league of nations, and, with the exception of the United States, that has been practically adopted by all the countries. So it would seem as if this might be duplication. They get statistics and they get reports and they keep people posted upon all questions of international arbitration, and they want to bring it about.

Mr. CARR. May I suggest that quite irrespective of what the league of nations may or may not accomplish, which none of us knows at the present moment, I wonder if we clearly note the distinction between the kind of thing the Interparliamentary Union is and a league such as the league of nations, in which the different governments are represented as governments.

As I understand the matter, the International Parliamentary Union is not a governmental organization. It is an association of legislative bodies of the different governments, which is quite a different thing from an association of representatives of the executive branches of the different governments. This is for the purpose, as I understand it, of influencing public opinion in the different countries. The other kind of organization would be for the purpose of coordinating executive action in the different countries, or governmental action.

Mr. CONNALLY. Let me make this suggestion along that line. Under the form of the league of nations, even with the strong reservations proposed, the league of nations would not obtain jurisdiction of a dispute if the nations themselves decided to settle it by arbitration. So there is nothing inconsistent in the work of this union and the existence of the league of nations, because if those men by their own machinery and method of arbitrating a dispute can settle it, it is never referred to the council of the league of nations for settlement, and I think that is very attractive work which is carried on, because if private individuals can settle their disputes without resorting to the courts, good lawyers always advise them to do that.

Mr. CARR. Indeed, I should suppose the Interparliamentary Union would be a very useful adjunct to the league of nations or any other organization of that sort.

NINETEENTH CONFERENCE, INTERPARLIAMENTARY UNION.

Mr. ROGERS. In this connection, I would like to invite the attention of the committee to the item on page 23, extending the appropriation of $40,000 made for the 1919 conference of the Interparliamentary Union, which was supposed to have been held in Washington in 1915, but which was, of course, postponed because of the war, and has been postponed year after year since that time. This committee dropped this item from the current appropriation act, and I notice the department asks its restoration. I think whatever action we take should be somewhat with reference to these two items; in other words, they go together.

The committee last year dropped out both of these items. The question would naturally be presented this year whether that action shall be continued, or both items be restored, and I think it may be we will use the wording of the second item as well as that of the first for this purpose.

Mr. CARR. With regard to the second item for the Nineteenth Conference of the Interparliamentary Union, the department had the impression that the dropping of that item was largely because of the war situation, and that possibly with the restoration of peace Congress would wish to consider the holding of that congress. After all, it is a matter for the legislative branch of the Government rather than for the executive branch of the Government to consider, and the item was put into the estimates by the Secretary of State in order that it might be brought to the attention of Congress for such action as that body might wish to take.

Mr. ROGERS. Have there been conferences held in 1915 or since which in a sense replaced the one intended to be held at Washington? I was interested to see what relationship the conference which Mr. Moores has been attending bore to the one which was to have been held in Washington?

Mr. CARR. I have no information about what has taken place since the war began.

Mr. HOUGHTON. Might I suggest that we pass those items until we go into executive session?

Mr. ROGERS. Very well.

INTERNATIONAL RAILWAY CONGRESS.

Mr. ROGERS. The next new item is the item on page 16, asking for an appropriation of $400 "to pay the quota of the United States as an adhering member of the International Railway Congress for the year ending April 15, 1921.”

Mr. HOUGHTON. There could not be any question about that, could there?

Mr. ROGERS. It has been dropped for four years.

Mr. CARR. The United States became an adhering member of the International Railway Congress in 1905. Although the obligation is not based upon a treaty, the expenses of the sessions of the con

gress are distributed over five-year periods and therefore the pro rata is understood in each case to cover a five-year period. The last pro rata period of the United States began in 1915 and continued until 1919. The last appropriation made by Congress was for the fiscal year 1916, when $400 was appropriated. There was an error in the accounting, in that 400 francs instead of $400 was asked for in 1915 and 1917. These two amounts of $160 were paid out of the 1916 appropriation, and the remainder of the appropriation reverted to the Treasury.

The Belgian Government has now asked us, explaining this error, for the quota for the fiscal year 1918-19, and the quota for the fiscal year 1917-18, the difference between the quota due and that actually paid for the fiscal year 1916-17, which is $400 less $80, or $320, and the difference between the quota due and the amount actually paid for the fiscal year 1915-16, $400 less $80, which is $320, or a total deficiency of $1,440.

Mr. NEWTON. That is now before the Committee on Appropriations?

Mr. CARR. That is now before the Committee on Appropriations. All of that relates to those amounts, and the amount of $400 is included in the regular estimates for the fiscal year 1921.

That brings up the matter of the international obligation which the United States incurred by going into an association where the dues are a certain amount every year, and then without serving notice of withdrawal in accordance with the terms on which it entered, suddenly cease to make an appropriation, and it shows very clearly that we not only do not cancel our legal and moral obligations by ceasing to appropriate but that we are likely to be called upon later on by the Government having control of the bureau to pay our dues. It is the same sort of thing as going into a club and withdrawing before the end of the year and not paying your dues. You are expected to pay at least to the end of the year in which your withdrawal takes place. There is not any question about the United States being morally obligated under the conditions which I have set forth to pay not only the deficiency but to pay its dues up until the end of the period prescribed by the rules of the association.

Mr. BEGG. What is the judgment of the Department of State as to the advisability of continuing as a member of this organization? Mr. CARR. I think the Department of State would undoubtedly favor our continuing as a member in an association of this sort, because as the country having the greatest number of railways in the world, I think we ought to be interested in being a member of an international railway association.

REIMBURSEMENT OF CONSUL ROSS HAZELTINE.

Mr. ROGERS. The next new item, on page 16, is for the reimbursement of Consul Ross Hazeltine, and the amount asked for is $164.25. Mr. BEGG. He actually lost the money, did he not?

Mr. CARR. He actually lost the money. He took every reasonable and proper precaution, I think. Nevertheless, his consulate was destroyed, and the money was destroyed. The money was in the safe, but it was destroyed. It does not seem quite fair that he himself should be the loser.

Mr. ROGERS. Are there any precedents for this sort of reimbursement?

Mr. CARR. I do not recall any exact precedent for this.

Mr. ROGERS. It seems common justice, and I wondered why it has not been brought to our attention.

Mr. CARR. The only case I recall in any way similar to this was one where the money was missing, through robbery, and Congress did not appropriate for reimbursement, so far as I recall.

Mr. TEMPLE. It occurs frequently in other departments.

Mr. CONNALLY. What are the requirements in your department as to the proper method to be pursued by consuls for the custody of funds? Are they required to keep them in a safe or in a bank? Mr. CARR. They are expected, and ordinarily they do keep their official money in banks, but always at their own risk. If a bank should burn down and the money would be lost, the consul unquestionaly would be responsible to the Government under his bond. In this case, for some reason, the consul carried this small amount in his safe. You will notice that it is a very small amount of money, which he doubtless had on hand for current needs. The consulate was destroyed and the money was lost. It does not seem quite fair that he should bear that expense.

Mr. ROGERS. I should like to read a paragraph from the Secretary's letter, on page 7, in connection with this item, because we want to save a point of order on this in the House. The Secretary says:

Through the destruction by fire of the American consulate at Port Antonio, Jamaica, on August 26, 1917, the American consul at that post, Mr. Ross Hazeltine, suffered the loss of official funds, through no fault of his own, valued at $164.25. At the time of their loss the funds were deposited in the official safe of the consulate, in which they were burned, and his efforts to save the money, although unsuccessful, were none the less thorough. As the depositing of such funds in the consular safe was in the line of his official duties, it is felt that the Government could not properly attach such personal responsibility to Consul Hazeltine as would force him to bear the loss of these funds. No valuation of personal effects or articles other than official funds lost in the fire are included in the amount of the estimate.

SALARIES AND EXPENSES, UNITED STATES COURT FOR CHINA.

Mr. ROGERS. In reference to the items in the United States Court for China, suppose you make a statement to the committee about the small changes in amounts in that item and then we will proceed to the legislative changes proposed on pages 17 and 18. I will say, parenthetically, that perhaps you may not recall that on October 18 of this year, Judge Lobingier was in Washington and he testified quite fully before the committee with relation to the changes which he recommended, both in the amounts to be carried in the first item and also the legislative cases, which are set out on the succeeding pages, and if the committee desire to inform themselves fully as to his reasons for the changes they will be found in the printed copy of the hearings when he was before the committee.

Mr. CARR. Referring, first, to the item for salaries and expenses, beginning on line 20, page 16, you will notice that the words "and court reporter" are added after the word "stenographer," on line 21, and the salary of the stenographer and court reporter is increased from $1,800 to $2,400. The reason for that is that a man competent