of the year you will have greatly increased the revenues and decreased the expenses?

Mr. LANDIS. Next year is quite a long period. Out of the maintenance and operation fund of a million and a quarter

Mr. CRAMTON (interposing). You mean the operating deficit.

Mr. LANDIS. The operating deficit, yes; we acquire river boats, and river boat operation

Mr. CRAMTON (interposing). No; that is a separate item.

Mr. LANDIS. Out of the million and a quarter.

Mr. CRAMTON. No; there is a separate item for the operating deficit and for boats, and a separate item for the purchase of boats. Mr. LANDIS. They can

Mr. CRAMTON (interposing). Well, I do not want to take the time of the committee further, and I do not want to embarrass you unduly in the matter.

I want to make this suggestion, that the million and a quarter proposition is now pending. We have already given the million beyond recall, so far as we are concerned, but the quarter of a million additional we have not yet given. That has a present interest.

The CHAIRMAN. Who fixes the compensation for the officers of the railroad?

Mr. LANDIS. With the exception of the chief engineer and myself, who are appointed by the Secretary of the Interior, I fix it.

The CHAIRMAN. What is your compensation?

Mr. LANDIS. $6,500. That is to begin with, according to my understanding.

The CHAIRMAN. How much more pay do we give the men for the same class of work in Alaska than they get in the United States? Mr. LANDIS. You mean the train men, enginemen, and men of that character?

The CHAIRMAN. Yes.

Mr. LANDIS. We do not pay them the standard wages that they would get for the same work in the States, because the work is not quite the same, or trains so heavy. But we have a very efficient class of train, engine, and track men, all the way down the line, and they are very satisfactory men to work with.

Mr. BUCHANAN. Will you put in the record the salaries of the supervising officers of the railroad, such as yourself?

Mr. LANDIS. The general manager receives $6,500.

The CHAIRMAN. What does the chief engineer get?

Mr. LANDIS. He is detailed by the War Department. He is an Army officer.

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Landis, I understood you to say in reply to question by Mr. Cramton that you would give us a statement of your estimated income and estimated outgo for the next year, and put that in the record.

Mr. LANDIS. I will be glad to do that.

The CHAIRMAN. We will give you time to consider it, so it will not be said that you did not have the time to make a proper statement. Mr. LANDIS. The question as to who these appropriations come through that is, what channels they come through-is something new to me. I know the value of a dollar when I come to let go of it, but I did not make up these estimates.

The CHAIRMAN. We are not asking about these estimates. We are asking about the estimate of receipts and expenses of the railroad, and if that statement, as you will prepare it, differs from the statement already made, show us in what respect it differs and why, if you can. I am referring to the statement in the hearings on the Interior Department bill for 1925.

Mr. CRAMTON. I have only one other suggestion, and that is that in the publicity you give to the public as well as to Congress you keep your feet on the earth.

The CHAIRMAN. Let us have the facts.

FRIDAY, FEBRUARY 15, 1924.

RECLAMATION BUREAU.

STATEMENT OF MR. OTTAMAR HAMELE, CHIEF COUNSEL.

DAMAGE CLAIMS.

The CHAIRMAN. We have an item for the Bureau of Reclamation, on page 44 of the bill, reading as follows:

Damage claims: To pay claims for damages to or losses of privately-owned property adjusted and determined by the Department of the Interior under the provisions of the act approved December 28, 1922, as fully set forth in House Document No. 151, reported to Congress at its present session, $612.85, payable from the "Reclamation fund."

Will you be kind enough to give us a detailed statement of how these damage claims occurred, what they are about, and the conditions under which they were settled?

GEORGE H. M'FADDEN & BROS.

Mr. HAMELE. Regarding the claim of $298.70 made by George H. McFadden & Bros., that arises in connection with our operation of the Yuma Valley Railroad. On the Yuma irrigation project in Arizona we have a short line of railroad running along the Colorado River.

The CHAIRMAN. You mean the Government has?

Mr. HAMELE. Yes; it is used principally for the purpose of levee work to protect the project against the river.

Mr. CRAMTON. Is that the line that runs out to the Laguna Dam? Mr. HAMELE. Yes, sir. It runs from the Laguna Dam south to Yuma and from Yuma to the international line. There are two or three stations along this road, and produce is loaded in carload lots at those stations and brought to Yuma, where the cars are switched on to the main line of the Southern Pacific. In this case the man in charge at Gladsden, one of these stations, issued an erroneous bill of lading for 135 bales of cotton, when in fact there were only 133 bales. As a matter of fact, he was buncoed by A. E. Deyo, the man in charge of shipping this cotton; he was negligent.

The CHAIRMAN. How could he be buncoed if he was attending to his business?

Mr. HAMELE. Well, he was not fully attending to his business. Claims of this character are all based on negligence.

The CHAIRMAN. How much money did the Government get out of it in freight?

Mr. HAMELE. The Government got a small toll for carrying it up to the main line.

The CHAIRMAN. How much?

Mr. HAMELE. I can not now tell just what the rate is.

The CHAIRMAN. Are you sure this man was honest about it? Mr. HAMELE. Oh, yes. The same principle, I suppose, would apply to every case that is adjusted under this act of December 28, 1922. In every case negligence is involved. That is one of the elements that is necessary in order to bring a claim within this act. The CHAIRMAN. When did this transaction occur?

Mr. HAMELE. In 1919; February 3.

The CHAIRMAN. The claim must be presented within a year, though.

Mr. HAMELE. This was presented within a year, and it has been the subject of much correspondence and negotiation. It was presented within a year.

The CHAIRMAN. You think we are liable, do you?

Mr. HAMELE. We are not legally liable, but I think we are morally liable.

Mr. BYRNS. How about the farmer who made the misrepresentation to the agent; is he responsible?

Mr. HAMELE. Our understanding is that Deyo, who practiced the fraud on the Government official, is irresponsible.

Mr. BUCHANAN. He raised 133 bales of cotton and had that much to ship, and is not responsible?

Mr. HAMELE. He had control of it.

The CHAIRMAN. Did he not perform a criminal act there?

Mr. HAMELE. I think he did.

The CHAIRMAN. Did he make any effort to institute proceedings against him?

Mr. HAMELE. We went into the matter pretty thoroughly. I think he has disappeared. I will not say that for certain.

The CHAIRMAN. Has he a farm?

Mr. HAMELE. I do not think he has a farm. I would not be sure about that.

The CHAIRMAN. If he raised 133 bales of cotton, he must have had some land.

Mr. HAMELE. I do not mean to suggest that he raised that cotton on a farm that he owned.

The CHAIRMAN. Even if he did not own it, he must have had some equipment.

Mr. HAMELE. He was a dealer.

The CHAIRMAN. Oh, he was not a cotton raiser?

Mr. HAMELE. I think he was engaged in the growing and selling of cotton at the time.

The CHAIRMAN. Where is this man now?

Mr. HAMELE. I can not say as to that, buy my impression is that he has left the locality.

The CHAIRMAN. This happened in 1919, you say?

Mr. HAMELE. Yes, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. And we have been fooling around with it ever since?

Mr. HAMELE. Yes.

The CHAIRMAN. What led anybody to conclude that it was a legitimate thing to submit to Congress finally?

Mr. HAMELE. Because it comes within the terms of this act of December 28, 1922, and the company is morally entitled to payment. Mr. CRAMTON. Suppose I read, Mr. Chairman, the terms of that act as to our obligation. It is very brief.

That authority is hereby conferred upon the head of each department and establishment acting on behalf of the Government of the United States to consider, ascertain, adjust, and determine any claim accruing after April 6, 1917, on account of damages to or loss of privately owned property where the amount of the claim does not exceed $1,000, caused by the negligence of any officer or employee of the Government acting within the scope of his employment. Such amount as may be found due to any claimant shall be certified to Congress as a legal claim for payment out of appropriations that may be made by Congress therefor, together with a brief statement of the character of each claim, the amount claimed, and the amount allowed.

The CHAIRMAN. Of course, this is not binding on Congress, is it? Mr. HAMELE. No, sir.

Mr. CRAMTON. The question in my mind is whether a moral claim would be sufficient.

Mr. HAMELE. There is no legal claim on account of negligence on the part of a Government official.

The CHAIRMAN. Under this act there would be.

Mr. BYRNS. Why would it not be a legal claim? If the agent issued a bill of lading for 135 bales of cotton, and those people in Waco accepted it or bought it on that bill of lading, when, as a matter of fact, only 133 bales were received for shipment, would not the railroad company under those circumstances be liable?

Mr. HAMELE. That is true.

Mr. CRAMTON. Not speaking of this particular claim, but generally, under this statute no claim can be paid except under circumstances that would have constituted it a legal claim against any party except the Government. This is to make it valid as against the Government, but it must be one that would have been a legal claim against anybody except the Government.

Mr. BUCHANAN. It would be a legal claim.

Mr. HAMELE. This act removes the prohibition against suits against the Government on account of the torts of its agents.

The CHAIRMAN. The only question involved here is whether the Government officials did everything that should have been done to prosecute the man who misrepresented the facts in the case at the time this deception was practiced.

Mr. HAMELE. I think that was done.

The CHAIRMAN. In what respect was it done?

Mr. HAMELE. I can not say at this moment, but I think that he disappeared. I think he went away. I do know that he is not financially responsible.

The CHAIRMAN. Is he not criminally liable?

Mr. HAMELE. I think a criminal action would lie. To succeed, however, we would have to establish the crime beyond a reasonable doubt, which is sometimes difficult.

The CHAIRMAN. I think it would be a good wholesome thing to prosecute a man like that.

Mr. HAMELE. It surely would.

The CHAIRMAN. I think we are liable on that.
Mr. HAMELE. Yes, sir.

MARY TURNAGE, ST. IGNATIUS, MONT.

The CHAIRMAN. The next claim is that of Mary Turnage, of St. Ignatius, Mont., for $75.

Mr. HAMELE. That case arose in the Flathead Federal irrigation project in Montana, and it should not be paid out of the reclamation fund.

Mr. CRAMTON. This is an Indian irrigation project?

Mr. HAMELE. Yes, sir; and the claim should be paid from the Indian appropriation.

Mr. CRAMTON. You have been operating that project?

Mr. HAMELE. Yes, sir; up to the present time. We are turning it over now to the Bureau of Indian Affairs.

The CHAIRMAN. Has this case been here before?

Mr. HAMELE. Not that I know of. I spoke to Mr. Merrit about it to-day as he went out, and he said that I could look after it.

The CHAIRMAN. What are the facts in this case?

Mr. HAMELE. We constructed an irrigation canal with concrete lining. It has rather steep sides, and when the water was turned on there was a heavy swift current of water through it. We should have fenced the canal atthe point where the accident occurred. The project manager failed to do that. He failed to fence it at that point before we turned the water on, and the result was that this cow fell into the canal, was carrued down by the swift current, could not get out, and was killed.

The CHAIRMAN. The cow is worth more dead than alive, I suppose. Mr. HAMELE. I think not. I was rather surprised when this came in because of its reasonableness. Of course, as a general rule the cow that gets killed is the best one in the herd, but I think this claim is in a reasonable amount.

Mr. BUCHANAN. Is there any law that requires you to fence the canal?

Mr. HAMELE. No, sir.

Mr. BUCHANAN. No more than any other public stream?

Mr. HAMELE. No, sir; there is no law requiring the Government to fence the canal.

Mr. BUCHANAN. Do you fence all of your canals?

Mr. HAMELE. No, sir. Our general rule is not to fence them, but we do where they are dangerous as this section was. We do fence places like that. When we realize that a point is dangerous we fence it.

Mr. BUCHANAN. Do you know how the cow got in the canal?

Mr. HAMELE. The canal runs across the land of the claimant, and the cow was on the land of the claimant. She fell into the canal: probably went there to drink.

WILLIAM D. NICHOLAS, WASHINGTON, D. C.

The CHAIRMAN. The third claim is that of William D. Nicholas, of Washington, D. C., for $239.15.

Mr. HAMELE. That claim arose on the North Platte project, in Nebraska and Wyoming. In 1921 we had a land opening on that