The CHAIRMAN. We will be glad to hear it.

Mr. ZAPPONE. For the salary and expenses of the man in charge at Grand Forks, for four months, from March 1, to June 30, we need $390 monthly; for monthly salary of the office assistant $200; for monthly salary of the office force, consisting of 10 persons, including clerks, stenographers, and bookkeepers, at an average of $110, would be $1,100, or $1,690 as the cost of that office for one month, and the cost for four months, from March 1, to June 30, would be $6,760. The salaries of three regular field men from April 1 to June 30, would be $1,800; their subsistence would be $1,080, and their mileage and auto hire $300, making a total of $3,180. In addition four special field men would be required for intensive farm to farm canvass in certain localities: Salaries for one month, at $150 per month, $600; subsistence for one month, at $4 per day, $480, and automobile allowance at 7 cents per mile, with an average of 50 miles per day, $364, making a total of $1,444. Then $1,400 will be required for recording fees for 3,500 renewal mortgages, at an average cost of 40 cents each, and for miscellaneous office expenses, including rent of typewriters, etc., $216, making a grand total of $13,000.

Mr. BUCHANAN. Your regular appropriation estimate for next year for collecting these outstanding claims is about $19,000. Mr. ZAPPONE. $19,315.

Mr. BUCHANAN. And this $13,000 is a preliminary estimate of what is required to put the claims in shape so that you can successfully collect those notes with the $19,000 in the regular appropriation? Mr. ZAPPONE. That is the idea.

COLLECTIONS EXPECTED TO BE MADE.

Mr. BUCHANAN. Judging from your experience in the past in the collection of these notes, you expect to collect how much through the use of the $32,000?

Mr. ZAPPONE. We expect to collect $30,000 between March 1 and June 30, and next year about $140,000, or about $170,000 in all. We do not expect to come up here each year and ask money to make collections when we feel that no more collections can be made, or that the collections will not amount to as much as the appropriation. Mr. BYRNS. How much interest do these notes bear?

Mr. ZAPPONE. Five per cent.

Mr. BYRNS. You said that the loans that were made out of the first appropriation were made to 13,000 farmers?

Mr. ZAPPONE. Yes, sir.

Mr. BYRNS. And out of the second appropriation loans were made to something over 12,000 farmers.

Mr. ZAPPONE. Yes, sir.

Mr. BYRNS. Do you know how many of the farmers borrowed a second time?

Mr. ZAPPONE. Quite a number met their notes, but there were quite a number that secured loans from the appropriation for 1922 as well as from that for 1921.

Mr. BYRNS. Did the department make loans out of the second appropriation to farmers who had failed to pay up their previous loans?

87419-24- -16

Mr. ZAPPONE. Yes, sir; but the Government took new mortgages and liens on the 1923 crop. Now we want to get renewal mortgages on the 1924 crop.

Mr. BYRNS. Can you tell me approximately about how many farmers made two loans?

Mr. OLSEN. A tabulation of that item has not been made, but there was a considerable number. I should say betweeen 4,000 and 5,000.

PURPOSE OF LOANS.

Mr. BYRNS. Mr. Lee asked a while ago whether or not the money which was loaned by the Government did not go in large measure to repay banks for loans that they had made to the farmers.

Mr. OLSEN. In most cases the original loans were used for the purpose for which they were made; namely, to purchase seed grains. Mr. BYRNS. It may be that they were used for that, but had not the banks advanced money to the farmers in many cases with which to purchase seed?

Mr. BUCHANAN. That is what the hearings heretofore have shown. Mr. ZAPPONE. That is a matter the Government could not control. Mr. BUCHANAN. It appears from the hearings that at the time the appropriation was made many banks had advanced money to the farmers with which to purchase seed, and that this money went to reimburse the banks. That was shown in the hearings last year; but, of course, that is all in the past.

The CHAIRMAN. Do you know whether or not the Government authorities endeavored to ascertain whether the money went to pay loans or to be used in the purchase of seed?

Mr. OLSEN. Applications for loans were received through local committees, and we had every reason to believe that the loans were used for the purposes for which they were made. We received some reports indicating that the loans were misapplied. Investigations of such cases were made by the department. There were a few cases where the money was not used for the purpose for which it was intended.

Mr. ZAPPONE. Yes; there were a few such cases.

Mr. JUMP. Some inspectors from the Secretary's office ran down certain specific cases that had been reported, as where, for instance, in a few instances a check had gotten into bad hands and used for some purpose entirely different from that for which the loan was made. We had four or five men working on that at one time. The CHAIRMAN. How many such cases did they find?

Mr. JUMP. There was not by any means a wholesale number; just a few specific cases.

Mr. BYRNS. I did not mean by my question to imply that the department could prevent that in every instance, because, of course, you could not make a personal investigation of every case to see how the money was used. I think that the whole theory was wrong.

Mr. LEE. I understood that this money went to relieve the banks. In other words, I understood that the banks unloaded on the Government.

Mr. BYRNS. I think that would probably be found to be true.

WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 20, 1924.

BUREAU OF PUBLIC ROADS.

STATEMENT OF MR. L. E. BOYKIN, BUREAU OF PUBLIC ROADS.

DAMAGE CLAIM.

The CHAIRMAN. Your item appears in House Document No. 191. This is a damage claim of $196.93. Please tell us whether the Government representative in this case was at fault, and, if so, how it was ascertained that he was at fault.

Mr. BOYKIN. The car was operated by an employee.

The CHAIRMAN. Tell us how you found out that this was the amount of the damage. Who decided that?

Mr. BOYKIN. That was the amount of the bill submitted by the Otis Elevator Co., which company did the repair work. They repaired the damage.

The CHAIRMAN. Does the elevator company do repair work on automobiles?

Mr. BOYKIN. The repair work is not on an automobile, but on an elevator. The damage that resulted was to the elevator.

The CHAIRMAN. Who decided that we were to blame?

Mr. BOYKIN. It occurred in this way. From the facts it would seem apparent

The CHAIRMAN (interposing). How did we ascertain it?

REPORT OF DISTRICT ENGINEER ON CLAIM.

Mr. BOYKIN. We have a report from the man who was operating the car and also from the district engineer under whose supervision he was working. With reference to the man who was operating the car, he called at this garage at 8.30 o'clock in the morning to get this car to go out for the day's work. The car was on the second floor of the garage, and he went upstairs. The elevator happened to be down on the first floor, and he proceeded to get his car in position to come down, or to run it on the elevator to be taken down. Then he expected to call one of the garage attendants to operate the elevator and take the car down. The car was parked on the space assigned to it at the opposite end from the elevator. The position of the other cars was such that he had to move his car in position with the rear end of the car in the direction of the elevator shaft, which was behind him. He stopped it about 6 feet from the elevator shaft. The CHAIRMAN. He did not want to go down?

Mr. BOYKIN. Yes, sir. The elevator was down on the first floor. He looked back to see what his position was. There was a winter

top on the car which he states obscured his vision to some extent. The CHAIRMAN. What time of day was this? Mr. BOYKIN. At 8.30 o'clock in the morning. In looking back, he partially released his foot on the clutch, and the car being in reverse gear moved rapidly backward. It moved backward so quickly that before he could regain control, it backed through the gate and down into the shaft on top of the elevator. The CHAIRMAN. Was he injured.

Mr. BOYKIN. He was not injured so far as reports indicate. The top of the elevator was only about 4 feet from the second floor, so it did not drop very far.

The CHAIRMAN. Who adjusted this claim on behalf of the Government, or what method is employed by the department in the adjustment of claims of this sort? Do you just take the bill submitted by somebody for it?

Mr. BOYKIN. The bill was submitted by the Otis Elevator Co. It was an Otis company elevator, and they were called upon to make the repairs. They made the repairs and submitted the bill. A copy of the bill is on file as evidence of the cost of repairing the damage.

The CHAIRMAN. Was there any official inquiry made on behalf of the Government, or was it investigated in any way?

Mr. BOYKIN. The district engineer, Mr. G. H. Miller, who has charge of the district in which the State of New York is embraced, investigated the matter and made a report. He ascertained that the items which they submitted were items which the Otis Elevator Co. had submitted to the garage company; that the garage company was in no way to blame; that there was no contributory negligence on the part of the garage company; and that it was due entirely to the operations of our man. He, therefore, recommended that the claim be paid.

Mr. JUMP. After being approved in the bureau, claims are examined by the solicitor and the inspection office of the department.

The CHAIRMAN. Should this be paid out of the administrative expenses for roads, or is there any need for a special appropriation for this?

Mr. JUMP. I think this is the first case we have sent up under the new law.

The CHAIRMAN. I think it should be paid out of the appropriation for the bureau.

Mr. JUMP. If the committee prefers to have it paid from the appropriation, that can be done. Of course, we have no authority to pay it now.

The CHAIRMAN. We can authorize its payment out of the appropriation.

Mr. BOYKIN. I would like to correct one statement in House Document No. 191. The letter of transmittal refers to this car as having been backed through the open door of the shaft, but the fact is that there was a gate before that shaft, and the car broke through the gate. There really was not an open door.

Mr. LEE. How does it happen that it belonged to the Otis Elevator Co.?

The CHAIRMAN. The Otis Elevator Co. put the elevator in the building.

Mr. LEE. They did not own it?

Mr. BOYKIN. No, sir; but they repaired it for the garage company, and then they submitted their bill.

FRIDAY, FEBRUARY 15, 1924.

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE.

BUREAU OF STANDARDS.

STATEMENTS OF MR. GEORGE K. BURGESS, DIRECTOR, AND MR. H. C. DICKINSON, CHIEF, HEAT AND POWER DIVISION.

REPLACEMENT OF ALTITUDE CHAMBERS.

The CHAIRMAN. We have an item on page 31 of the bill reading as follows:

Replacement of altitude chambers: For replacement of the altitude chambers, equipment and accessories for experimental work on internal-combustion engines, recently damaged by explosion, including provisions for safety in operation, including personal services in the District of Columbia, $72,000.

Will you be kind enough to explain just what this means, why it is necessary now, and what you hope to accomplish if you get the money?

Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Chairman, this explosion occurred on the 20th of September.

The CHAIRMAN. I know about the explosion.

Mr. BURGESS. And it was such that it in effect closed off that work. Therefore it is an item of immediate urgency.

The original equipment was provided as a military proposition during war time, in 1917. The work carried on is in connection with aviation engines and fuel problems for the Army and Navy and also for the Advisory Committee on Aeronautics. By the destruction of this chamber that work was stopped.

This equipment, originally costing, for the whole of it, something like $250,000, is the only equipment of its kind in the world. There was a similar equipment in Germany, I understand, which was one of the first things the allies destroyed when they took over the military occupation into their control. The problems, therefore, that are carried out in connection with this chamber are absolutely unique, and are vital to the military departments and also to civil aviation.

The estimate includes nothing except absolute replacement plus the factors that we have determined are entirely essential from the purely safety point of view. The actual reconstruction of the property involves over $41,000, and it requires $31,000 to make that equipment such that it can be safely operated. We could not rebuild on the $41,000 and get anybody to operate it. We thought we were building it as safe as human knowledge could make it in the original plan, but experience has shown that it was not adequately protected, or at least the men working about it were not adequately protected. The added safety items will provide for the safety of the men. is essentially a dangerous proposition, but it is absolutely essential for the progress in aviation research.

CONSTRUCTION OF CHAMBER.

The CHAIRMAN. Tell us what the chamber consists of.

Mr. BURGESS. The chamber itself is a concrete structure, which has to be made airtight. Therefore it is a very elaborate structure.