Mr. ROGERS. It would not be possible or practicable to combine this second paragraph with the first one?

Mr. KLUTTZ. No, sir. The chairman of the commission appeared before the Senate committee in regard to that; they wished to make the matter perfectly clear. It tends toward cordiality in the relations between the two Governments, as well as according with the fact that this counsel is not a counsel for the United States section of the commission. The commission is a court; it has not any counsel. Courts do not have counsel representing the court. He is counsel for the Government of the United States; he represents the Government of the United States, and the Canadian Government has a counsel who represents that Government. The Province of Ontario, which, of course, is primarily interested in these waters, has counsel representing it. And it should be absolutley segregated; that is just the way that the commission tried so hard to get it, and the way it ought to be--a segregated item.

Mr. DICKINSON. Is here any reason why the work of this commission could not be carried out by the State Department?

Mr. KLUTTZ. Yes, sir; there is every reason, because the State Department would represent only the Government of the United States, whereas this commission represents two Governments, consisting of citizens of both countries, coming together around a table, just like you gentlemen are here, and discussing face to face, after hearing all the evidence, the matter of the settlement of controversies between these two great nations; it is a direct and immediate method. Mr. DICKINSON. There is no reason why the British Government | could not appoint a man from their department of state and have the same matter determined in the same way, is there?

Mr. KLUTTZ. They would not have the power. This commission has jurisdiction by treaty. Even if they could do it, it would involve a separate tribunal in every case, just as was suggested a little while ago; it would not produce the continuous, cordial cooperation such as we have here, and it could not accomplish the same results, because this commission is constituted under the terms of a treaty, which gives it power and authority and jurisdiction which is final in the great majority of the cases involved.

Mr. DICKINSON. Do you think that there has been enough activity in this commission for the last year to warrant its continuation? Mr. KLUTTZ. Yes, sir; I do; taking into consideration its continuous history since 1912, it has settled more cases than were settled by diplomatic interchange in the previous history of the two countries finally settled more.

Mr. DICKINSON. But policies have been worked out now under this treaty by which most of these matters could be determined in a summary way, have they not?

Mr. KLUTTZ. Only perhaps the old matters. New matters will arise from time to time; and Congress, as I said, has just asked the commission, and the two Governments will soon ask the commission, to determine a question that is absolutely vital to the people of a very great section of the United States. By acts of five State legislatures they have appointed

Mr. ROGERS (interposing). Is not this the real question, Mr. Kluttz, that assuming, if you like, for the sake of argument, that the treaty has served its usefulness and might be denounced-might

be terminated, as its terms require, by 12 months' notice-nevertheless, until Congress, in an orderly way, does denounce that treaty, we must make the appropriations that the treaty requires as a matter of national honor?

Mr. KLUTTZ. Exactly.

Mr. DICKINSON. Is there anything in the treaty which provides that there shall be three commissioners who shall receive a salary of $7,500 each for doing this work?

Mr. ROGERS. No; there is not

Mr. CONNALLY. But the treaty provides for the number of commissioners.

Mr. ROGERS. Yes; the treaty provides the number

Mr. ATKINSON. Did you say that President Taft appointed the commission?

Mr. KLUTTZ. President Taft proclaimed the treaty and appointed the original commissioners.

Mr. ATKINSON. How long have these present commissioners been serving?

Mr. KLUTTZ. Mr. Gardner has been serving since September, 1913; Mr. Glenn since March, 1914; and Mr. Clark since last July. Mr. NEWTON. Mr. Clark succeeded Mr. Tawney, did he not? Mr. KLUTTZ. Yes; Mr. Tawney died in June.

The CHAIRMAN. The treaty provides for three commissioners representing each Government, does it not?

Mr. KLUTTZ. Yes.

The CHAIRMAN. But it does not fix any salaries?

Mr. KLUTTz. No, sir.

Mr. MOORES. Has not this committee those three original volumes with the treaty in them? They ought to be here.

Mr. KLUTTZ. I have the treaty here and can find the section that provides for the constitution of the commission. Mr. Chairman, I would like to put in the record a brief resumé of the work and findings of the commission in its investigation of the pollution of boundary waters reference.

The CHAIRMAN. All right; and you will bring that docket and the minutes up here to-morrow morning?

Mr. KLUTTZ. Yes, sir.

Mr. SABATH. This deep-water-way question has been submitted to the commission, has it?

Mr. KLUTTZ. No, sir. Congress passed the act, and then the two Governments took up directly the question of submitting it. You see, Canada did not make any request for the investigation of the navigability of the St. Lawrence River for ocean-going vessels. So that our Government, instead of submitting it directly, took it up with the Dominion of Canada to get them to agree, so that there would be cooperation in the matter and what the commission did would have the sanction of the two Governments, so that we could get somewhere. That is what they have always done in these questions. Although either Government can submit a question, it is better that both Governments do so; and the two Governments have agreed upon a form of reference and it will shortly be submitted; it has not yet been submitted. Our Government has forwarded it to the Dominion Government. In fact, the two gentlemen who repre

sented the two Governments in getting up this form of reference have sent it to Canada, and as soon as they accept it it will be referred to the commission.

But the work under it will-a part of it-be done during the balance of this year if it comes along soon, and certainly during the next fiscal year the funds will be necessary to carry on that investigation, which will be by all odds the most important matter that has ever come before the commission; it affects more people and involves greater interests.

Mr. SMITH of Illinois. Does the Canadian commission receive the same salary as the American commission?

Mr. KLUTTZ. Yes, sir; they receive the same salary.

Mr. SMITH of Illinois. That is paid by the Canadian Government? Mr. KLUTTZ. Paid by the Canadian Government; yes, sir.

Mr. MOORES. Congress does not fix their compensation; the President fixes their compensation?

Mr. KLUTTZ. It was provided by Executive order.

Mr. MOORES. The treaty says:

The salaries of the members of the commission on the part of the United States shall be fixed by the President, and the amount appropriated for the payment of salaries shall be disbursed under the direction of the Secretary of State.

Mr. NEWTON. Just what work are they now doing in the northern part in the matter of the overflow of rivers and lakes, and so on? They have had considerable work along that line, have they not? Mr. KLUTTZ. Principally this Lake of the Woods matter.

Mr. NEWTON. The Lake of the Woods has bothered them, and the Rainy River?

Mr. KLUTTZ. Yes; when the two Governments finally accept the recommendations in that case you see, that is under article 9 of the treaty; they could not file an award there-there will be more work on that. When the two Governments agree upon the definite terms of the report the commission, under its terms, will have a good deal more work to do in connection with that report, with regard to the value of overflowed lands, the regulation of the lake levels, and the conservation of that extensive watershed.

Mr. MOORES. The salary of the Canadian commissioners is fixed by the Governor General in council, but not in any case to exceed the sum of $7,500 per annum. The secretary appointed by the Canadian section shall receive a sum not exceeding $3,000 per annum.

Mr. KLUTTZ. That is the original Canadian act; that is the old act the first act passed; and the section of the treaty that we are looking for

Mr. MOORES (interposing). Well, I have been looking at that.
Mr. SABATH. When were the commissioners first appointed?

Mr. KLUTTZ. I think, in January, 1912.

Mr. SABATH. And I understood that the salary was fixed by Presi

dent Taft?

Mr. KLUTTZ. By President Taft; yes, sir.

Mr. SABATH. He made it $7,500?

Mr. KLUTTZ. He made it $7,500; yes, sir.

Mr. SABATH. And President Wilson has not increased it?

Mr. KLUTTZ. No, sir; it remains what it was, notwithstanding that everything else has been increased very much since that time.

Mr. ROGERS. Are there any more questions? Thank you, Mr. Kluttz.

Mr. KLUTTZ. You are very welcome. I thank you very much for this courteous hearing.

(Thereupon, at 12.30 o'clock p. m., the committee went into executive session, and at 1.30 o'clock adjourned.)

(The following memorandum was subsequently submitted by Mr. Kluttz :)

CASES BEFORE THE INTERNATIONAL JOINT COMMISSION FROM 1912 To 1920.

Rainy River Improvement Co.
Watrous Island Boom Co.

Lake of the Woods levels.

Pollution of boundary waters.

Livingstone and other channels in the Detroit River.

Michigan Northern Power Co.

Greater Winnipeg water district.

Algoma Steel Corporation (Ltd.).

Milk and St. Mary Rivers.

The St. Croix Water Power Co.

Sprague's Falls Manufacturing Co. (Ltd.).

International Lumber Co.

United States Government for approval of the improvement of the St. Clair River at or near the town of Port Huron, Mich.

New York & Ontario Power Co.

St. Lawrence River Power Co.

Canadian Cottons (Ltd.).

COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS,

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,

Washington, D. C., January 15, 1920.

The committee assembled at 10.30 o'clock a. m., Hon. Stephen G. Porter (chairman) presiding.

The CHAIRMAN. Who succeeded Mr. Tawney, Mr. Kluttz?

STATEMENT OF MR. WHITEHEAD KLUTTZ, SECRETARY INTERNATIONAL JOINT COMMISSION-Resumed.

Mr. KLUTTZ. He was succeeded by former Senator Clark of Wyoming-Clarence D. Clark, of Evanston, Wyo.

The CHAIRMAN. When was Mr. Clark appointed?

Mr. KLUTTZ. He was appointed early last July, according to my best recollection; Mr. Tawney died on the 12th of June, and the appointment was made about three weeks after that.

The CHAIRMAN. 1919?

Mr. KLUTTZ. Yes, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. Has Mr. Clark ever taken part in a hearing since his appointment?

Mr. KLUTTZ. The minutes you have there show, I think, that the only meeting held since his appointment was the meeting in New York last November; he took part in that.

The CHAIRMAN. Well, the last meeting shown in your docket is of date April 3.

Mr. KLUTTZ. That is due to the fact that these others are not approved and are therefore in typewritten form. There is that one and the one at Ottawa in the front of that book [indicating]. They have not been written up; they are not yet approved.

The CHAIRMAN. Are you so busy that you have not had time to write them up?

Mr. KLUTTZ. They have not been approved; they are not put in the book until they are approved. Mr. Clark attended the meeting at Ottawa; I did not just now recall that; he attended that meeting but was called away by the illness and death of his daughter. He went to both of those sessions, the one at Ottawa in October and the one at New York in November.

Mr. ROGERS. Were all three commissioners at all three meetings? Mr. KLUTTZ. They were all three at the meeting in New York in November. Mr. Glenn was not at the meeting in Ottawa; he was at the meeting in New York.

Mr. ROGERS. And how about the third meeting? Was that in Washington?

Mr. KLUTTZ. There was a meeting in Washington in April, and a meeting in New York prior to that during the calendar year.

Mr. ROGERS. Were all three of these commissioners at both of those meetings?

Mr. KLUTTZ. Mr. Glenn was at the meeting in New York in November; he was not at the prior meetings on acount of ill health. Mr. ROGERS. He attended only one of the meetings?

Mr. KLUTTZ. Yes, sir; he attended only one of the meetings, due to ill health; his health is better now; he had a very serious breakdown. There is a draft of the minutes of that meeting at Ottawa and there is also a digest of it in this chronological abstract_which I have brought up to date, taken from the minutes. The Ottawa draft does not appear in the written minutes for the reason I gave; but there is a full digest of it here in this record [indicating].

Mr. ROGERS. Was Mr. Gardner at all of the meetings?

Mr. KLUTTZ. Yes, sir; Mr. Gardner was at all of the meetings, and Mr. Clark has been at both meetings since he was appointed; and Mr. Glenn expects to be at all future meetings on account of the improvement in his health.

The CHAIRMAN. May I suggest to the committee that we have Mr. Kluttz prepare for us a statement showing the hearings held since January 1, 1919.

This record shows that the meetings in 1919 were as follows:

Tuesday, January 14, 1919, the commission met in New York City, Messrs, Gardner, Magrath, and Tawney being present; and Messrs. Powell and Glenn being absent. No quorum. Adjourned until Wednesday, January 15.

January 15, 1919, the commission met in the Biltmore Hotel, New York City, all members except Mr. Glenn present; continued in session during the day.

April 1, 1919, the commission met in Washington, Messrs. Gardner, Magrath, Powell, and Tawney being present; Mr. Glenn absent on account of illness, and the vacancy caused by the resignation of Mr. Mignault not having yet been filled.