Major PRICE. Yes, sir. It states in the act that the monuments erected under the authority of the act will be cared for by the Quartermaster General of the Army in the same way that the cemeteries are cared for.

Mr. CRAMTON. That is all right. I am not thinking only of the matter of upkeep, but I mean a type of memorial that will require us to have two or three guards or clerks around there.

Major PRICE. No, sir; in this project there is no memorial requiring care of that kind.

Mr. CRAMTON. Nothing of that kind will be done?

Major PRICE. No, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. Why is it proposed to take title to land without referring the title to the Attorney General's office?

Major PRICE. I have the statute here, but we can not tell without a definite ruling whether we have to go to the Attorney General for land not in the United States, and to clear that up the Comptroller General advised that if we put it in here there would be no doubt it when the question came up.

The CHAIRMAN. The question is whether we ought to buy land without knowing whether we have the title.

Major PRICE. The French probably will not give us the clear title to land.

The CHAIRMAN. You mean they will not give you the fee simple to it?

Major PRICE. Yes, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. Just an easement on it?

Major PRICE. The chances are that they would do it as they have done with cemeteries. They give us in the cemeteries a right of burial which gives us full control of the land. We do not have to pay taxes, but if at any time we are not using it for burial purposes it reverts back, and they pay us for it.

Mr. BUCHANAN. Can you give us those figures on the amount of that land, approximately?

Major PRICE. Figuring on the basis of 10 cents a square foot, we have an item of $9,000 for the relief maps; of $4,500 for the outline sketch maps; I have not the separate figure here for the miscellaneous monuments, but figuring on the same basis it would be less than $1,000. That is a total of $15,000.

The CHAIRMAN. Fourteen or fifteen thousand at the outside?

Major PRICE. Yes, sir. It is just a little over $15,000. I have found it-the item "arranging for ground" is $17,496. I do not think we will spend that amount, but it is a reasonable allowance.

ESTABLISHMENT OF OFFICES ABROAD.

The CHAIRMAN. You have this language on page 8:

The establishment of offices and the rent of office space in foreign countries.

You propose to establish offices?

Major PRICE. We propose to have an office in Paris. This work will be done, we figure, by contract in France.

The CHAIRMAN. The relief maps?

Major PRICE. The monuments.

The CHAIRMAN. And the bronze work?

Major PRICE. The bronze work we will do, I believe, over here, sir. We are planning on getting stone in France.

The CHAIRMAN. You mean the erection of them?

Major PRICE. The erection of them, and details like that. For our office force for this year we are planning on having, besides the officer in charge, just one stenographer and a person that we call an interpreter and liaison officer. The French do business a little different from the way we do, and on certain of this work we can get some Frenchman who is connected in some way with the people we deal with, who will do such work as acquiring land, etc.

The CHAIRMAN. You mean a real-estate man?

Major PRICE. Yes, sir. I have in mind a man who has been recommended by the miltary attaché in Paris, although the subject has never come before the commission. This man is an architect and is connected with the Beaux Arts Bureau of the French Government. We could retain him for a certain fee and he would do work for us. By giving him $1,500 the chances are he would save us a much greater amount.

The CHAIRMAN. You propose to have just one stenographer in the office?

Major PRICE. Yes, sir: one stenographer, the officer in charge, and the liaison officer.

The CHAIRMAN. The officer in charge is an Army officer?

Major PRICE. He is an Army officer: yes, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. He is on the Army pay roll?

Major PRICE. Yes, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. He is not a member of the commission?
Major PRICE. No, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. He is assigned to the commission?

Major PRICE. He is assigned to the commission; yes, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. How many of these details is it proposed to make to the commission?

Major PRICE. It is at the discretion of the President. We now have one officer who is to start the work in France, and we will need two more for historical work. We are trying to settle these questions of battle lines and we need more help; so, we have asked for two more.

The CHAIRMAN. There is this further language:

To be disbursed by the secretary of the commission upon vouchers approved by its chairman.

That is the law, is it not?

Major PRICE. That is the law; yes, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. Do we need to carry that in this act?

Major PRICE. I do not know, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. It seems to me we ought not to repeat it. Major PRICE. We modeled this as well as we could after the wording in other estimates.

REIMBURSEMENT FOR ACTUAL EXPENSES.

The CHAIRMAN. Why is this language on page 9 necessary?-Provided further, That when traveling with the commission or on the business of the commission officers of the Army serving as members or as secretary of the commission shall be reimbured for actual expenes as provided for other members of the commission.

Major PRICE. That is mainly to take care of General Pershing's case when he is traveling with the commission. I believe, the way the law now reads, that other members of the commission would travel on an actual expense basis and General Pershing would travel on the Army basis. It was to make them all equal when they travel together.

Mr. BYRNS. In other words, we will pay more money? The expense would be larger under this language than it would be if he was traveling on an Army basis?

Major PRICE. I am not sure, sir.. It is, however, to put the members of the commission on the same basis, no matter where they come from. For instance, the President might detail three or four officers to the commission and they would be traveling on an entirely different status from the other ones.

Mr. BYRNS. They would all go as secretaries?

Major PRICE. No, sir.

Mr. BYRNS. Those detailed officers would all go as secretaries? You say "As members or as secretary of the commission."

Major PRICE. No, sir; the secretary of the commission is a detailed Regular Army officer.

The CHAIRMAN. You are the secretary, are you?

Major PRICE. Yes, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. And are you a Regular Army officer?

Major PRICE. Yes, sir. It is to put the members when they are all together on the same status. For instance, taking General Pershing's case, according to law, it is not quite certain how he would travel. We tried to word this estimate so that there would be no doubt.

The CHAIRMAN. Your idea was that General Pershing would have to come down to the level of the other members of the commission if this language went in?

Major PRICE. Or he would be in the same status-up to the level. The CHAIRMAN. Up to the level; perhaps that is better. There is no limit placed on the amount that a commissioner can spend, is there?

Major PRICE. No, sir; there is no limit placed at all.

The CHAIRMAN. There is no limit as to what he may spend money for?

Major PRICE. Yes, sir; he has to spend it for actual expenses in connection with the work of the commission.

The CHAIRMAN. But how do you describe the actual work of the commission?

Major PRICE. That would have to be a matter that the chairman would decide, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. Who is the chairman?

Major PRICE. General Pershing is the chairman; Captain Woodside acting.

AUTHORIZING SHIPPING BOARD TO CHARGE MINIMUM RATE FOR COMMISSION AND PERSONNEL.

The CHAIRMAN. The next proviso is:

That the United States Shipping Board is authorized to furnish proper accommodations for the commission and personnel engaged on the work of the commission, when traveling by water, at the minimum first-class rate.

Major PRICE. I understand that has been done, and it was put in there at the advice of a member of the Shipping Board.

The CHAIRMAN. They are authorized to do that for anybody. Major PRICE. We consulted with them, and they said that if it was in the bill there would be no doubt about it.

The CHAIRMAN. Any shipping company will furnish accommodations at the minimum rate. Of course the idea is to get the highest standard of accommodations for the lowest rate?

Major PRICE. Yes, sir. Also to insure that our personnel will be carried to Europe if there is any first-class space left on a boat. They do this, as I understand, for Members of Congress and other people traveling on the Shipping Board vessels. They will give accommodations at a certain rate, and then, when the boat sails, if better accommodations are not being used, or the person is especially prominent, they will give him better accommodations for the minimum rates.

The CHAIRMAN. They will do that on any shipping line. There is no shipping line in the world that will not do that for anybody. You do not have to have an order to get it.

Major PRICE. The idea was that the Shipping Board would take care of the prominent members.

EXPENSES INCURRED SINCE MARCH 4, 1923.

The CHAIRMAN. There is an item here which reads:

Provided, That not exceeding $1,600 of the amount herein appropriated shall be available to meet such expenses of the commission as may have been incurred since March 4, 1923, and prior to the passage of this act, as may be approved by the chairman of the commission.

Major PRICE. That item, sir, is to cover the expenses of the members for meetings which have already taken place. In other words, to prepare any estimates at all, they had to meet. Mrs. Bentley, for instance, came from Chicago four times.

FUNDS FROM STATE, MUNICIPAL, OR PRIVATE SOURCES.

Mr. BYRNS. Major, I notice the act provides that the commission is authorized to receive funds from State, municipal, or private sources. Major PRICE. Yes, sir.

Mr. BYRNS. Have you received any such funds?

Major PRICE. No, sir.

Mr. BYRNS. Are you expecting any?

Major PRICE. No, sir. It is not expected to use that provision. It was put in in case something that could not be foreseen came up; for instance, if there was a popular demand for a monument some association might get subscriptions for it and then want the commission to expend them.

Mr. Chairman, if you desire to hear any further testimony in support of this project, there are any number of people who have signified their willingness and desire to appear.

The CHAIRMAN. Who, for example?

Major PRICE. For example, representatives of the various ex-service organizations.

The CHAIRMAN. They would not be able to tell us any of the details of this, would they?

Major PRICE. No, sir.

87419-24 -4

THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 14, 1924.

FEDERAL BOARD FOR VOCATIONAL EDUCATION.

STATEMENTS OF MR. J. C. WRIGHT, DIRECTOR, AND MR. E. JOSEPH ARONOFF, SECRETARY AND CHIEF CLERK.

COOPERATIVE VOCATIONAL EDUCATION IN AGRICULTURE.

The CHAIRMAN. Your item is on page 10, as follows:

Cooperative vocational education in agricultural education: For an additional amount to enable the Federal Board for Vocational Education to comply with the requirements of the act entitled "An act to provide for the promotion of vocational education," approved February 23, 1917, $27,502.12. Mr. WRIGHT. There are two sums, totaling $75,682.09. The CHAIRMAN. We will take up one item at the time. It appears that you had an appropriation of $2,009,000 for this purpose, $2,000,000 of which was to be apportioned on the basis of rural population and $9,000 to bring up allotments of States receiving under the apportionment less than $10,000 to the minimum specified in the act. The act specifies that the allotment on the basis of population shall be in the proportion which the rural population bears to the total rural population of the United States, not including outlying possessions, according to the last preceding United States

census.

According to this note

An allotment of this money on the basis of the 1920 census develops the fact that $36,502.12 will be required to provide the minimum of $10,000 for States whose allotments do not amount to this sum. The special appropriation of $9,000 noted above is therefore inadequate to cover the minimum provided in the act, the amount of the deficiency of the special appropriation being $27,502.12, which is the difference between the $9,000 appropriated in the act and the $36,502.12 required under the allotment on the basis of the 1920 census. Tell us just exactly what you have done with this money.

Mr. WRIGHT. We never had the money. The original act, when it was passed, provided insufficient funds for this one year. The act in question is an act that has a gradually increasing fund of money allotted to the States. It provides for a minimum of $5,000 until the year 1924, and the amounts that have been provided to guarantee this minimum were sufficiently up to the present year. The minimum of $5,000 was increased in 1924 to a minimum of $10,000, but no corresponding increase was made in the appropriation for this year. Beginning with the year 1925 the appropriations are sufficient for a minimum of $10,000, but for some reason, which I am not able to explain, the act did not provide for enough money to take care of the increase for the present year. This is true in both sections 2 and 3 of the act.

The CHAIRMAN. So that what you are asking for now is enough money to make up the difference between the allotment on the basis of $5,000 and the allotment on the basis of $10,000 ?

Mr. WRIGHT. Yes, sir. The Federal board has no discretion other than to certify to the Secretary of the Treasury the full amounts provided by the act.