« PreviousContinue »
The CHAIRMAN. The Secretary of War sent a letter to the House and he included in it extracts from a report of Gen. Pershing and from those extracts the facts are as I have stated them. What I wish to know is has there ever been a similar case?
Mr. CARR. Cases somewhat of this kind were those growing out of the Italian riots in New Orleans, where not as a matter of right but as an act of grace
The CHAIRMAN (interposing). But the facts were entirely different there. They were killed in riots.
Mr. CARR. The facts were not the same, I admit.
The CHAIRMAN. And here is a case where we have a military expedition into Mexico, and this man, in violation of orders, is surreptitiously selling liquor to our soldiers. He is killed, and an exhaustive investigation is made by military authorities, and his servant is given every opportunity to identify the perpetrators of the crime from the men of the company stationed at the place; and although they can not prove that any American soldier committed the crime, they think as an act of grace we ought to give money to his family. I think that is the most extraordinary set of circumstances I have ever known.
Mr. TANIS. Here is a telegram from Gen. Funston to The Adjutant General at Washington, D. C., dated June 20, 1916, which says: "In quarrel which took place about 10.30 p. m.
Mr. GILLETT (interposing). That telegram is printed here in the book.
The CHAIRMAN. I want to know if there is any case which at all parallels this case.
Mr. TANIS. I do not know of any case that parallels this.
Mr. CARR. I think the letter of the Secretary of War practically establishes the fact that there is not any exactly parallel precedent, because he says in the last paragraph, on page 3, that somewhat similar cases were those of the Italian subjects and also the case of Schmidt, a German subject.
The CHAIRMAN. They were not similar cases at all.
Mr. CARR. He says they were somewhat similar. Apparently there is no case exactly parallel to this, but it seems to be the judgment of both the Secretary of State and the Secretary of War that it would be a wise thing to make this appropriation for the benefit of the relatives of this subject of Japan.
Mr. GILLETT. We have before us all the facts that you know, I presume?
Mr. CARR. I think you have, in the letter of the Secretary of War, all the facts that are in the possession of both departments.
RELIEF AND PROTECTION OF AMERICAN SEAMEN IN FOREIGN COUNTRIES, PANAMA CANAL ZONE, AND INSULAR POSSESSIONS.
The CHAIRMAN. "For relief and protection of American seamen in foreign countries, and in the Panama Canal Zone, and shipwrecked American seamen in the Territory of Alaska, the Hawaiian Islands, Porto Rico, and the Philippine Islands, $20.000."
Is this for this fiscal year or the last fiscal year?
Mr. CARR. That is the fiscal year ended June 30, 1917. The explanation for that, Mr. Chairman, is this: The law imposes upon con
sular officers the duty of relieving and sending back to the United States destitute American seamen, or seamen on wrecked vessels, or seamen who are ill and unfit for service. The appropriation you gave us has been exhausted. The drafts that have since come in under that standing provision of law have been met from the emergency fund because there was no other way of meeting them. The law imposes the obligation of rendering the service, so we had to pay the drafts out of the emergency fund. This is for the purpose of reimbursing the emergency fund. We have paid out of that fund to date $8,167.74. We do not know what drafts are still outstanding and have not come in. At the time we made this estimate we thought we would need probably about $20,000. We are under the impression now that we will not need that entire amount, but we do not know quite how much of it we will need. We do know we will need over $8,000 to reimburse the emergency fund.
The CHAIRMAN. Is the emergency fund a continuing appropriation?
Mr. CARR. The emergency fund is made so much a year plus unexpended balances of the preceding year.
The CHAIRMAN. How could you reimburse it from this appropriation?
Mr. CARR. We would pay back into the emergency fund
The CHAIRMAN (interposing). You would not have any authority to do that. You can not transfer appropriations from one fund to another. There is a statute which expressly forbids doing that. Mr. CARR. I think it has been done right along; in fact, I know it has been done.
The CHAIRMAN. Then you have been violating the law right along. Mr. CARR. In this particular fund
The CHAIRMAN (interposing). You violate the law if you transfer funds like that. You have no authority to do that.
Mr. CARR. It has been done for years with the approval of the accounting officers.
The CHAIRMAN. The statute specifically provides that no money shall be expended for a purpose other than that for which it is specifically appropriated.
Mr. CARR. I think, Mr. Chairman, the accounting officers look upon this particular appropriation as different from any other.
The CHAIRMAN. I do not care how they look upon it; if they do that they look upon it in a way Congress never anticipated. I will read that law for the benefit of the State Department:
All sums appropriated for the various branches of expenditure in the public service shall be applied solely to the objects for which they are respectively made and for no others.
You can not take an appropriation specifically made for this purpose to reimburse some other appropriation. If the accounting officers are doing that, they are doing something that they have no authority to authorize.
Your emergency fund is very large, is it not?
Mr. CARR. The emergency fund is $150,000 a year.
Mr. GILLETT. That is the secret fund?
Mr. CARR. Yes; of course, you understand $150,000 is not a very large sum of money in these days.
The CHAIRMAN. I know that, but that is not all that you have in these days.
Mr. CARR. No; that is perfectly true.
The CHAIRMAN. So we need not worry about that phase of it. We should be frank about these things.
Mr. CARR. That is perfectly true. We go to the national-defense fund now for expenditures that we can not meet out of the emergency fund.
MONDAY, JULY 16, 1917.
STATEMENT OF MR. H. P. HUDDLESON, ASSISTANT CHIEF DIVISION OF PUBLIC MONEYS.
CREDITS IN ACCOUNTS OF S. R. JACOBS-PAYMENT TO ERNEST SATTERLEY.
The CHAIRMAN. "The accounting officers of the Treasury Department are authorized and directed to credit in the accounts of S. R. Jacobs, disbursing clerk, Treasury Department, the sum of $114.70, being the amount paid by him to Ernest Satterley, a clerk in the Treasury Department, as reimbursement for actual expenses incurred by said Ernest Satterley while on special duty at the Subtreasury, New Orleans, La., from November 20, 1916, to February 11, 1917, in accordance with and under orders of the Secretary of the Treasury dated November 15, 1916." What is this, please?
Mr. HUDDLESON. Mr. Satterley was receiving teller in the Subtreasury at New Orleans, and at the time of his transfer the Assistant Treasurer, Heard, had resigned. He was appointed to a State office, and we could not hold him under his bond after accepting the resignation, which the Secretary did, in order to permit him to take this State position which had been offered him. The laws of the State would not permit him to accept the position and at the same time hold a Federal position.
So we had to take charge of the Subtreasury. The Treasurer of the United States, being the only bonded official, took charge ad interim, and the Secretary sent Mr. Fort, the Assistant Treasurer, to New Orleans, accompanied by Mr. John Moon from the Public Moneys Division, to take charge of the office, Mr. Moon to keep the books and the cash and Mr. Fort to transact the executive business. At the time of this transfer Mr. Satterley wanted to come to Washington and was transferred from the position of receiving teller at $2,000 per annum to a $1,400 place on the rolls of the Public Moneys Division in the Treasury. It became necessary to have the services of Mr. Moon, who is a very valuable man; in fact, one of the best men we have in the office, and the Secretary, on November 15, assigned Mr. Satterley, after his taking the oath of office as clerk in our division, to relieve Mr. Moon, who was directed to return to Washington. We were paying the expenses of both Mr. Fort and Mr. Moon, who were in charge of the Subtreasury there. Mr. Satterley remained on duty until the new Assistant Treasurer was sworn in. Mr. Fort was then relieved, and both returned to Washington. When the accounts came to the auditor he disallowed those of Mr.
Satterley on the ground that he was not on a travel status; that it was simply transferring him from one place to another; and that directing him to stay there did not put him on a travel status. So Mr. Satterley will lose expenses unless you grant this relief.
Mr. SHERLEY. I do not know that I understand it. Satterley was on a salary in New Orleans?
Mr. HUDDLESON. He was; yes, sir.
Mr. SHERLEY. And he got transferred to this other position?
Mr. SHERLEY. And came up here?
Mr. HUDDLESON. He did not come up here. The Secretary directed him to stay there and relieve Mr. Moon, who came home.
Mr. SHERLEY. He stayed down there?
Mr. HUDDLESON. Yes, sir.
Mr. SHERLEY. On what basis should he get any different pay? How was his relationship changed at all?
Mr. HUDDLESON. There was a difference in compensation. He originally received $2,000 in the New Orleans Subtreasury, and we transferred him here at $1,400.
The CHAIRMAN. That was because his place was to be abolished, was it not?
Mr. HUDDLESON. No, sir; he wanted to be transferred to Washington?
The CHAIRMAN. He wanted to be reduced $600 and come to Washington?
Mr. HUDDLESON. He was willing to do that on account of his health. New Orleans knocked him out physically.
Mr. SHERLEY. But he did not come here and stayed down there. Mr. HUDDLESON. He remained there by direction of the Secretary. He wanted to come here.
Mr. SHERLEY. I am not getting at what he wanted to do. The fact is that he stayed there?
Mr. HUDDLESON. Yes.
Mr. SHERLEY. Why should he be paid any more than he was receiving anyway for having stayed there?
Mr. HUDDLESON. If we had let him come on here and kept Mr. Moon there, we would have had to pay Mr. Moon—
Mr. SHERLEY (interposing). That is not a reason.
We are not hunting for reasons why we might have had to pay money if we had done certain things. He got the same amount of money he had been getting while he was there?
Mr. HUDDLESON. No, sir; he got $600 less.
Mr. SHERLEY. He got a new position and got the pay of the new position?
Mr. HUDDLESON. Yes, sir; $1,400.
Mr. SHERLEY. Then the reason is that inasmuch as he stayed at New Orleans instead of being transferred to Washington at a reduction of $600, then he ought to get the difference between the two salaries at New Orleans?
Mr. HUDDLESON. It has always been customary to pay a man's expenses when you send him out on duty.
Mr. SHERLEY. But this man was not sent anywhere. He was already down there.
Mr. HUDDLESON. Yes.
Mr. SHERLEY. You can not make a fiction out of a fact.
The CHAIRMAN. He was already living there and the theory is that you should pay his expenses although he remained there under these orders of the Secretary.
Mr. HUDDLESON. From the time he was transferred to the new position; yes, sir.
Mr. BYRNS. When he was reduced, was it expected he would be ordered here to Washington at once?
Mr. HUDDLESON. Yes, sir.
Mr. BYRNS. And after his reduction the Secretary of the Treasury decided to hold him there?
Mr. HUDDLESON. Yes, sir; to take Mr. Moon's place.
Mr. GILLETT. Why did he not change him and give him back his $2,000 pay?
Mr. HUDDLESON. Because another man had been put into the position on the Subtreasury roll.
The CHAIRMAN. It cost him no more to live in New Orleans than it would have cost him if he had come to Washington and lived here; he had to live any way.
Mr. HUDDLESON. Yes; he would have to live, Mr. Fitzgerald, but having been transferred and told he was going to be transferred, I understand he gave up his arrangements there in New Orleans and prepared to come to Washington.
The CHAIRMAN. But that does not increase a man's expenses.
Mr. HUDDLESON. It was not of his own accord but by direction of the Secretary that he stayed there.
The CHAIRMAN. You paid him his expenses from New Orleans to Washington when he finally came here, did you not?
Mr. HUDDLESON. No, sir; we did not. We made him pay his railroad expenses to Washington.
Mr. GILLETT. Why was not he allowed to come here?
Mr. HUDDLESON. We thought Mr. Moon was a more valuable man to have in the department; and Mr. Satterley, being a bookkeeper, could do that work down there as well as Mr. Moon, and we relieved Mr. Moon and brought him home and put Mr. Satterley in his place down there. We were paying Mr. Moon's expenses.
The CHAIRMAN. Why is it you are trying to get him allowed the maximum sum allowed for subsistence to any officer in the Government?
Mr. HUDDLESON. No; we are not trying to get that.
The CHAIRMAN. $414.70 is just 30 cents short of being $5 a day for the period he was there, and that is the maximum allowed for subsistence.
Mr. HUDDLESON. I do not know about that. I did not figure it up in that way.
The CHAIRMAN. Do you think this $1,400 clerk incurred an expense of $5 a day for subsistence when he had been living all the time in New Orleans?
Mr. HUDDLESON. I do not know about that.