The bill was reported to the Senate without amendment, ordered to be engrossed for a third reading, read the third time, and passed.

CLAIM OF CITY OF NEW YORK,

The bill (S. 1035) for the relief of the city of New York was considered as in Committee of the Whole, and was read as follows:

Be it enacted, etc., That the Comptroller General of the United States be, and he is hereby, authorized and directed to adjust and audit the claim of the city of New York for expenses incurred by said

city in aiding to suppress the insurrection against the United States during the years 1861 to 1865, and in making said andit the provision of the act of Congress of July 27, 1881 (12 Stat. L. p. 276), as interpreted and applied by the Supreme Court of the United States in the case of the State of New York v. The United States, decided Jannary 6, 1896 (160 U. S. Repts. p. 598), shall be applied by the said Comptroller General and report the amount so ascertained to Congress for consideration.

The bill was reported to the Senate without amendment, ordered to be engrossed for a third reading, read the third time, and passed.

RIGHT OF REPRESENTATION AT SENATE COMMITTEE HEARINGS. The resolution (S. Res. 118) providing that any person or agency investigated by any Senate committee shall have the right to be present in person and by attorneys and to present evidence in their own behalf was announced as next in order. Mr. ROBINSON. Let that go over.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The resolution will be passed

over.

NEW JERSEY SHIPBUILDING & DREDGING CO.

The bill (S. 1572) for the relief of the New Jersey Shipbuilding & Dredging Co., of Bayonne, N. J., was announced as next in order.

Mr. DIAL. Let that go over.

The report of a board of naval officers, which was immediately convened by the Navy Department to investigate the matter, states very clearly that the navigation of the naval vessel was conducted in a manner to involve unnecessary risk. The commander of the naval vessel executed a turn at the very point where he should not have attempted to make such a turn in view of the very strong currents existing in Hell Gate, with the result that he crashed into this barge and sank it. The barge sank in 20 minutes, was a total loss, and 43 days were expended in getting the wreckage out of the way and in resuming this river and harbor work, which was being done under contract, under the supervision of the Army engineers. The board of naval officers appointed by the Navy Department to look into the matter secured evidence from the board of Army engineers in charge of the work, in an endeavor to ascertain what the damages amounted to. They certified finally, after an exhaustive investigation, that the company had suffered damage of $205,028.28, and they have so reported to the Committee on Claims, the Navy Department accepting full blame for the disaster.

The Committee on Claims, however, noting that $53,750 of the $205,000 was to cover the amount of money which the barge would have earned for the contractor, in accordance with the terms of the contract, during the 43-day period when all work was stopped as the result of the sinking of the barge, in a claim of this sort, has reported the bill amended, so that and believing that prospective earnings should not be included instead of the sum of $205,028.28, the amount recommended is chinery on her, and the effects of her crew, all of which were $152,278.28, the actual value of the drill barge and the ma

lost.

The Government was entirely to blame. The property of a citizen was destroyed by the negligent action of servants of the Government. There can be no doubt whatsoever as to the justice of this claim. If It is to be sent to the Court of Claims, I venture to say-in fact, I am certain--that exactly the same state of facts will be reported.

Mr. HARRIS. In reading the report, I do not see any mention of the question of insurance, and I want to ask the Senator from New York whether that matter was investigated and whether there was any insurance on the barge. Of course, the Government should not be liable if the insurance companies paid for the damage to this boat. There is nothing in the report to show whether there was any insurance on it or not. Mr. WADSWORTH. I do not know as to that.

Mr. HARRIS. It seems to me it is important we find that out. If the company was insured and will get paid by the insurance companies, we certainly would not want the Government to pay also.

Mr. WADSWORTH. I suppose the barge was insured. It is the custom of business concerns possessed of valuable property and machinery to insure it.

Mr. HARRIS. That is the reason I asked the question. Mr. WADSWORTH. If it was insured, I imagine there is no doubt but that the insurance company protects itself in a transaction of this sort, and that the insurance company would see to it that the New Jersey Shipbuilding & Dredging Co. would not be paid twice.

Mr. HARRIS. I am sure the insurance company will protect itself, and I am just trying to get the Government protected, so that the Government will not pay the claim if the Insurance company is liable; and most of these people carry insurance.

Mr. BAYARD. I will state to the Senator from Georgia on that very point that the counsel for the shipbuilding company who presented this claim before the Committee on Claims went into that matter very thoroughly. The Government is fully protected. Whatever is paid, the Government will lose nothing, If amounts are paid, they will be credited on account, and there is no overpayment as far as the insurance company is concerned.

Mr. WADSWORTH. I thank the Senator from Delaware. Mr. DIAL. Did I understand the Senator from Delaware to say that the Government would lose nothing if it pays this amount, that if it pays this claim, it will recover from the insurance company?

Mr. BAYARD. Up to date, I think, the insurance company has paid about $80,000 on account. Account is being kept all through, and if the Government pays the claim the insurance company will be repaid whatever is obtained from the Govern ment up to the amount for which it is responsible.

Mr. DIAL. Mr. President, I want to speak of this claim, and of all claims generally. I enter my protest against this method of passing on claims. It is extremely embarrassing for

me to rise and oppose a claim presented by any Senator. I claim for myself the friendship of every Senator on the floor; but if Senators will excuse me for referring to myself, I practiced law for some 30 years. I represented corporations part of that time, and part of the time I brought suits against corporations.

From my long experience, I am well aware of the fallacy of trying cases by listening to one side only, or principally to one side. I have seen statements of plaintiffs from which it would appear certain that they should recover; that there was no defense to the claims, no way of getting around paying them. Yet, when we had an opportunity to cross-examine the plaintiffs or bring up witnesses on the other side, we would show that the defendants were not legally liable. Often we would show that a plaintiff brought on the injury himself. Many defenses of that kind would be presented which would mean the complete exculpation of the defendant.

I feel that cases in tort should be referred to some court. I have the highest regard for every member of the Committee on Claims, but it is asking too much of a committee of Senators to expect them to sit down and act as petit jurors in little damage cases. We are sent here to represent the interests of the people of this country, to legislate, to watch legislation, to try to promote the welfare of all the people of this country, and we should not be expected to act as jurors in trial justice

courts.

I have great faith in the courts of our country, and if any American citizen has any right denied him, I am perfectly willing for him to go to the court, the legally constituted authority for passing on such matters. Of course, I know well one can not sue the Government without the Government's consent, but I am willing to grant the consent of the Government so that any citizen may have his day in court.

Mr. WADSWORTH. Mr. President, will the Senator yield at that point?

Mr. DIAL. Certainly.

Mr. WADSWORTH. My question has nothing to do with this particular bill, but if the theory of the Senator is put into practice, does he not realize that very often the injured person will not be able to afford to go to court?

Mr. DIAL. I do not think so. I think if he has a good case, he can get some lawyer to take it. I do not much favor contingent fees, but the taking of contingent fees is practiced in the country, and if a man has a just claim he can get to court with it.

Mr. WADSWORTH. The Senator is more optimistic about his profession than I am; but I am not a member of it.

Mr. DIAL. The Senator would be more optimistic if he were a member of the legal profession. I have a very high regard for the legal profession, Mr. President.

I am serious about this matter. If we did not look into these cases we would not be doing our duty. It is too much to be expected of us. We can not do it and properly attend to our correspondence and our duties on the floor of the Senate, and to the requirements made of us, attending to the different departments and looking into matters that are of importance to our constituents. It does seem to me that with the ability Senators of the United States have, we ought to be able to devise a general bill creating some court, if the courts in existence now are not adequate, to meet the demands of the people, where this kind of cases could be disposed of. I throw out this suggestion to the distinguished members of the Committee on Claims for their consideration, and I hope they can arrive at some conclusion.

Mr. BAYARD. I would like to state to the Senator from South Carolina that for many years past cases have been referred by resolution, or by joint action of the two bodies of Congress, to the Court of Claims, with the result that findings have been had upon facts determined, and reports made back to either the House or the Senate, as the case may be; but there are millions of dollars in the Federal Treasury to-day which should be used to pay those claims which are not being paid because Congress, in spite of the fact that the Court of Claims, established for the purpose of determining the actuality of those claims, has passed upon them, will not pay those moneys out when the bills come to these bodies.

Mr. DIAL. We should be more amenable to the decisions of the court. If a man has his day in court, and establishes his claim, Congress ought to pay it or ought to adjust it. Take this particular claim in question. A few experts are brought here and the committee presents its opinion, but I have noticed, particularly at this session, that in a large number of cases the committee ignores the recommendations of the department. It seems they almost universally find

against the recommendations of officials and employees of the Government. I for one like to have respect for and confidence in my employees. If I had a man under me for whom I had no respect, and in whose judgment or ability I had no confidence, I would let him go and put some one else in his place.

To show the fallacy of a committee passing on a claim of this magnitude, not having the witnesses before them to examine them, one engineer stated that this ship was worth from $150,000 to $250,000. If we had him before us to crossexamine him, we would make him be a little bit more definite. Mr. WADSWORTH. I know the Senator means to be accurate. That was the testimony of two different men, not one. Mr. DIAL. I beg the Senator's pardon; it was that of two or three men. I do not wish to misquote the testimony. It is said at one place in the report:

Two inspectors representing the engineers' office in New York, who are constantly employed on the work, fixed the value of the drill boat-one at $150,000 and the other at $250,000.

brought out before the committee the further fact that the Mr. BAYARD. I will state to the Senator that there was Government has since built a boat almost the exact replica think, a half million dollars. of the boat destroyed, and it has cost the Government, I

Mr. DIAL. I am not much surprised at what anything and material. Last summer it was my misfortune to have costs the Government, with the present high prices of labor to pay a little darky $12.50 a day to lay a few bricks for me. That is half as much as my good friend from Delaware gets the expenses of building go on up, we will have to stop for representing his State in the Senate. If material and building in this country, it seems to me. At the present time we are not able to build homes in which to live. I noticed an article in the paper to-day stating that some folks were even living in tents because they could not get houses to live in. If the captain of this ship, or the man who was navigating it-I do not know whether you dignify him with the title of captain or not-was to blame, there ought to be some way for the Government in the future to protect itself by taking a bond, if we get men to run ships who are going to destroy Government property through carelessness. Besides that, the report authorizes the payment of $152.278.28, when the claimant's own witnesses fix the value at $150,000.

So. Mr. President, to my mind these cases ought to be referred to the Court of Claims. The only way I know of to test the sense of the Senate is to make a motion to that effect.

This claim was before us last year. Hereafter, in order to find out the pleasure of the Senate I shall make a motion to refer claims, unliquidated claims in tort particularly, to the Court of Claims. Personally I have no objection to referring them to the district court in the district where any injury occurs, to let them try the question; but I am opposed to taking up my time and the time of other Senators here acting as jurors. It should not be expected of us. We are not prepared to try such cases, and it would take all of our time to try cases that are presented here.

I notice that many of them are old, and if they had any merit in them it seems to me they certainly would have been paid a long time ago. The practice of ignoring the Government officers and the recommendation of the heads of departments it seems to me is setting a very bad precedent, indeed, and encouraging people to come to Congress to ask favors of their particular representatives. I am opposed to that method. However, I withdraw my objection.

There being no objection, the bill was considered as in Committee of the Whole.

Mr. DIAL. I move to amend the bill by striking out "$152,278.28" and inserting "$125,000.” Mr. WADSWORTH. adopted?

Has the committee amendment been

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The bill is before the Senate as in Committee of the Whole, and the question is on agreeing to the committee amendment striking out "$205,028.23" and inserting "$152,278.28.” The Senator from South Carolina moves an amendment to the amendment of the committee, which will be stated.

The PRINCIPAL LEGISLATIVE CLERK. In line 6 It is proposed to strike out "$152,278.28" and to insert in lieu thereof "$125,000.”

The amendment to the amendment was rejected.
The amendment was agreed to.

The bill was reported to the Senate as amended and the amendment was concurred in.

The bill was ordered to be engrossed for a third reading, read the third time, and passed, as follows:

Be it enacted, etc., That the Secretary of the Treasury be, and he is hereby, authorized and directed to pay, out of any money in the Treasury not otherwise appropriated, the sum of $152,278.28 to the New Jersey Shipbuilding & Dredging Co., of Bayonne, N. J., in full settlement to reimburse said owner of drill boat No. 8 for loss sustained as result of total destruction of said drill boat No. 8 through collision with the U. S. S. Lykens, in Hell Gate, off Halletts Point, New York Harbor, on September 1, 1921.

a

HEIRS OF AGNES INGELS, DECEASED.

Mrs. Ingels. The driver succeeded in stopping the truck at the intersection of Mountain Street and Central Avenue, the truck partially blocking Mountain Street. At the time the said truck struck Mrs. Ingels she was within 10 feet of the curb (west) and 12 to 15 feet south of Mr. Berner when he was run down.

Mrs. Ingels was given first-aid treatment and was then rushed to St. Joseph's Hospital, where she expired at 3.30 the following morning without having regained consciousness.

The Dodge truck herein referred to was in a defective condition, as will appear later, and the proximate cause of the death of Mrs. Ingels was the negligence of Private Law, driver, in turning his head before he had brought his truck to a standstill, and the action of

Mr. DIAL. Let the bill be read.
The bill was read, as follows:

Be it enacted, etc., That the Secretary of the Treasury be, and he is hereby, authorized and directed to pay, out of any money in the Treasury not otherwise appropriated, to the heirs of Agnes Ingels, deceased, late of Lexington, Ky., the sum of $5,000 for injuries occasioned to the said Agnes Ingels while a visitor at Hot Springs, Ark., by the negligent operation of United States Government motor truck No. 25967 while said truck was in the care and custody of and being driven by an enlisted man of the United States Army under the orders of his superior officer, and while the use of such truck was dangerous because of its defective condition, such condition being known to the officer responsible for the maintenance of said truck in operation, the injuries occasioned as aforesaid resulting in the death of said Agnes Ingels.

Mr. DIAL. This is another one of those tort cases which ought to go to the Court of Claims. The Secretary of War reports that

The two accidents were immediately investigated by the board of officers, which found that the accidents were unavoidable and not due to neglect or carelessness on the part of the driver of the Dodge truck.

Right here, in the face of that report, the committee comes in and recommends that the heirs be paid $5,000.

Mr. OVERMAN. Are we to understand that the report says the Government was in no fault?

Mr. DIAL. Yes. On page 7 of the report Newton D. Baker, then Secretary of War, says:

The two accidents were immediately investigated by the board of officers, which found that the accidents were unavoidable and not due to neglect or carelessness on the part of the driver of the Dodge truck.

This is another one of those matters which I regret to bring to the attention of the Senate; but I do not want to be partial with my good friend from Arkansas [Mr. ROBINSON], and I felt it my duty to call to the attention of the Senate the report of the Secretary of War.

Mr. ROBINSON. Mr. President, the Senator from South Carolina has correctly read the letter of the Secretary of War, which states that a military board made an examination and found that the driver of the truck which ran over and killed Mrs. Ingels was not negligent. Notwithstanding the finding of the board, the committee, upon the evidence submitted, found the driver of the truck was inexcusably negligent. statement of the facts in the case will disclose that the committee which reported the bill was correct, that its findings were reliable, and that the finding of the military board was unjustified from any standpoint of evidence or argument.

A

Let me read to the Senate the statement of facts accompanying the report, which is based upon the testimony of witnesses in the form of affidavits, as follows:

Mrs. Ingels had crossed the street at the point above stated (just north of Mountain Street) and had reached a polut about 10 feet from the west curb.

Mr. Abraham Berner, a visitor from New York, was crossing the street at the same time and in the same direction as Mrs. Ingels, and was about the center of the street when a Dodge Government motor truck, driven by Private Law, and proceeding south on said street, struck the sald Berner, the left fender of the truck striking him and throwing him to the left side of the truck.

The driver (Law) upon striking the man, jammed on his brakes and turned his car sharply to the right (west) side of the street and was negligently and carelessly looking backward to the scene of the first accident, when the truck ran down Mrs. Ingels, throwing her against the pavement with great force and violence. The truck ran over her dragging her a distance of 15 feet or more before the driver was able to stop the truck. No warning was given by the driver, he having his head turned at the time the truck ran down

to be used when it was well known to said officer that the truck was defective and its use dangerous on the city streets.

Let me say that the evidence also shows that some one had informed the officer in charge of motor transportation at the hospital that this truck was in the condition which rendered it unfit for use; that it was dangerous to employ the truck; and that, notwithstanding that fact, Law was ordered and required to use it.

In view of the circumstances which I have stated, as clear a case of negligence as was ever submitted to a court supports the report of the committee in this case. The Senate can afford to take any action that it chooses in reference to the matter. Mr. CAPPER. A similar bill has passed at two previous sessions, in the Sixty-sixth Congress, and also in the Sixtyseventh Congress.

The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. FESS in the chair). Is there objection to the present consideration of the bill? There being no objection, the bill was considered as in Committee of the Whole.

The bill was reported to the Senate without amendment, ordered to be engrossed for a third reading, read the third time, and passed.

ELY N. SONNENSTRAHL.

The bill (S. 1330) for the relief of the estate of Ely N. Sonnenstrahl, deceased, was announced as next in order. Mr. OVERMAN. Let that go over, at the request of the Senator from South Carolina [Mr. DIAL].

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The bill will be passed over.

OFFICERS IN CHARGE OF PUBLIC BUILDINGS AND GROUNDS IN THE

DISTRICT.

The bill (S. 1918) relative to officers in charge of public buildings and grounds in the District of Columbia was announced as next in order.

Mr. GREENE. I ask that the bill may go over.

Mr. FERNALD. Will the Senator allow me to make a brief statement with reference to the bill?

Mr. GREENE. Certainly.

Mr. FERNALD. This is a matter of considerably more than common importance. It was taken up by the Committee on Public Buildings and Grounds at a meeting at which most of the members of the committee were present. The first part of the bill does nothing but change the name of the office of public buildings and grounds. superintendent of public buildings and grounds to director of

When this office was created there were fewer buildings in this city than are here at the present time. The only thing of importance about the bill, so far as I know, is an increase in salary to what the committee felt would be commensurate with the duties of the office. This officer is an executive officer; he has charge of the expenditure of more than $50,000,000, and has direct charge of over 1,600 employees. The committee felt and as I have stated it was a very largely attended meeting-that the salary was not commensurate with the office. Mr. MCKELLAR. May I ask what salary the officer now receives? Mr. FERNALD. His salary is $7,500, I believe. Mr. WADSWORTH. He gets the salary of his rank in the Army.

Mr. CURTIS. I ask that the bill may go over. Mr. FERNALD. Will the Senator permit me to continue my remarks?

Mr. CURTIS. I have no objection to the Senator continuing his remarks, but I shall continue my objection to the consideration of the bill, because I do not think the salary ought to be increased in this way.

Mr. KING. Nor should there be any increase at all. Mr. GREENE. Will the Senator permit me to offer a suggestion?

Mr. FERNALD.

Certainly.

Mr. GREENE. My foundation for objection to the bill is that, inadvertently, probably altogether without any previous thought about it, the committee did not consider that the bill comes under the jurisdiction of the Committee on Military Affairs in the sense that it reestablishes a peculiar and particular office of civil administration under a new title; it appears to provide a new salary for the office; and then provides that an officer of the Regular Army shall administer the office. The Senator, of course, would need no prompting from me to understand that the duties of the officers of the United States Army are supposed to be provided for under military law, and jurisdiction of the field of military law is confined to the Committee on Military Affairs. If we were to permit this bill to go through without question, very soon various other civil agencies would be establishing duties for the officers of the Regular Army, providing their salaries, and detaching them from their military duties without any knowledge on the part of the Committee on Military Affairs or any opportunity to express their judgment about the matter.

Mr. FERNALD. As I understand, the Senator desires the bill to be transferred to the Committee on Military Affairs? Mr. GREENE. Oh, no.

Mr. FERNALD. I would be very glad to have that done. Mr. GREENE. I thought it possible, however, that if the bill be postponed in the proposed present consideration, there might be some opportunity for those interested in both phases of the matter to be heard, because there is a civil as well as a military aspect, and perhaps we could get some better understanding of the situation than the bill now suggests. Mr. MCKELLAR. Has the Bureau of the Budget passed on the increase of salary?

Mr. FERNALD. I do not think it has.

Mr. McKELLAR. I thought that all appropriations were passed on first by the Bureau of the Budget.

Mr. FERNALD. I do not think so.

Mr. WADSWORTH. Not statutory salaries.
Mr. FERNALD. This is not a statutory salary.

Mr. WADSWORTH. It is proposed to make it statutory. Mr. FERNALD. If the Senator will permit me to proceed, as I have all the afternoon, I may as well present a few of the facts as to why the committee felt that this is a very proper bill, and very properly came before the Committee on Public Buildings and Grounds. I am not going to ask for a vote upon it, of course, this afternoon.

Mr. ROBINSON. Will the Senator explain his observation that he has the entire afternoon? These bills are subject to objection at any time.

Mr. FERNALD. I shall not take over five minutes, if the Senator will allow me to proceed.

Mr. ROBINSON. I thought the Senator was assuming he could take the entire afternoon.

Mr. FERNALD. Oh, no.

Mr. JONES of Washington. The Senator could move to take up the bill, and in that way occupy the afternoon.

Mr. FERNALD. I do not intend to do that. Most of the legislation I have brought before the Senate from my committee has been along business lines. I believe this is the first bill in which I have ever suggested that an increase of salary be made. My friend, the junior Senator from Utah [Mr. KING], who objects to the consideration of the bill, knows very well that I have fought side by side with him on all these questions of appropriations and increases of salaries. But I am going to read, if I am allowed to proceed, some of the increased duties of the office since it was created, and some of the duties of the office when it was created. As I said, it

will take but a short time, but I want to get the evidence in

right now.

Mr. GREENE.

interruption?

Will the Senator from Maine permit another

Mr. FERNALD. Certainly.

Mr. GREENE. I think the chairman of the Committee on Military Affairs, who is present now, will concede that probably I am not violating the tradition which holds some proceedings of the committee in confidence when I suggest that it was through indirect circumstances that the suggestion of the duties of the engineer officer in charge of public buildings and grounds came up incidentally in discussion in a meeting of the committee a few days ago. It was then thought wise, but no official action was taken, and the suggestion was made that it might be proper to inquire into the details of the present situation of the officer in charge of public buildings and Exactly the same information which I think the Senator from Maine is about to read to us was laid before us in an unofficial way, and we thought then that there ought to

grounds.

be some action taken probably so far as concerned the law covering the rank of the officer and the responsibility of the officer in charge of such important duties.

But I think the Senator from Maine can plainly see that if there is to be any increased rank granted to an officer in the Army to administer such highly important functions, and If he is to have an increase of pay because his responsibilities have in recent years become augmented, the jurisdiction for such legislation should be lodged with the committee which governs all activities of all Regular Army officers.

Mr. FERNALD. I quite agree with the Senator, and I should be very glad to have the bill transferred to the Committee on Military Affairs.

Mr. GREENE. That, of course, I am not authorized to respond to.

Mr. FERNALD. If the Senator from New York, chairman of the Committee on Military Affairs, will accept the transfer, I shall be very glad to have it made. In the meantime, I believe it would be quite proper to get such information as may be available in regard to the duties of this office and the manifold duties which have increased in the last few years and have it given to the Senate at this time.

I am addressing the chairman of the Committee on Military Affairs, and I am wondering if he would be willing to accept the transfer of the bill to his committee?

Mr. WADSWORTH. The bill, as I read it, contains features which ordinarily the Committee on Military Affairs never consider; that is, the care of public buildings and grounds in the District of Columbia. The only thing in which the Committee on Military Affairs has an interest is that the bill specifically provides that an Army officer, selected from a certain branch of the service, shall be detailed to the work and then be paid more than any other officer in the Army of the United States with the exception of General Pershing. To that, of course, as one member of the Committee on Military Affairs, I object. We can not establish discriminations in pay as between Army officers so violent as that without ruining discipline and morale.

Mr. MCKELLAR. It would absolutely ruin discipline. Mr. WADSWORTH. You would have half the Army officers trying to be appointed directors of public buildings.

Mr. FERNALD. If a military man is doing the work and service of a civilian, should he not be paid commensurately with the duties of a civilian?

Mr. WADSWORTH. No, Mr. President.

Mr. FERNALD. Should it hinder him from receiving the same salary?

Mr. WADSWORTH. Mr. President, an Army officer should do whatever work he is assigned to at the pay established for his grade. If we once start giving bonuses and additional pay to Army officers for special work, we will tear all to pieces the morale of the Regular Army service.

Mr. FERNALD. It seems to me if we should follow the course advocated by the Senator we would prevent Army officers from accepting a position like this.

Mr. WADSWORTH. An Army officer is doing the work now on the pay of a lieutenant colonel.

Mr. FERNALD. Yes; but how long can we continue to find men who are willing to work for that salary? Mr. WADSWORTH. We have been doing it ever since the office was created.

Mr. McKELLAR. Most of them like it.

Mr. FERNALD. I think, Mr. President, I shall proceed with some of the duties of the office, the name of which I am trying to change.

First. He is military aid to the President and his personal escort at formal official functions. He is in charge of arrangements for all diplomatic, social, and military functions at the White House. He represents the President in formal courtesies to diplomatic and other foreign officials.

Second. He is in charge of the improvement, maintenance, and operation of the parks of Washington, including the administration of all activities therein, such as recreational fea tures, bathing beach, golf courses, tennis courts, baseball fields, and so on. This involves executive responsibility for all work involved in an expenditure of approximately $1.000.000 a year. Third. He is in charge of the maintenance and operation of the public memorials, such as the Lincoln Memorial and the Washington Monument.

Fourth. He is in charge of the maintenance and upkeep of the White House, the Executive offices, and the White House grounds, including disbursement of funds for the White House police force.