is outside my province. There is nothing in this bill that requires, either directly or by implication, that we shall continue another year our policy of giving needy rural school teachers money to keep the STA schools open. I would, within the law, act either by congressional direction or by Executive direction. I think, on the merits of the case, we will be amply warranted in spending the $20,000,000. I hesitate, because I do not think it is my business to go into the the question of Federal aid to schools.

Senator McKELLAR. If the committee should decide to do that, then you could use the language of the bill?

Mr. HOPKINS. That would certainly start the earmarking. I can tell you of a number of things we need. For instance, cotton. We usefully could use a million bales of cotton for mattresses, quilts, and things like that that our families desperately need.

Senator McKELLAR. There is a bill of that kind now before the Senate.

Mr. HOPKINS. Yes. I would prefer that there be no earmarking in this bill.

Senator TYDINGS. Would the money be spent more or less efficiently if we should earmark it?

Mr. HOPKINS. I think that you would spend it less efficiently.
Senator BYRNES. If what?

Mr. HOPKINS. If you earmark it.

Senator TYDINGS. If you earmark it, you think it would tend to extravagance?

Mr. HOPKINS. Yes.

Senator BYRNES. If we earmark it, do you think it will eventually require a much greater sum for the projects that are earmarked? Mr. HOPKINS. I do, in the end.

Senator BYRNES. So far as you have heard of them?

Mr. HOPKINS. I have heard of a good many. One of the dangers of earmarking is that this is an administrative program for relief, and the Department would be thus holding the bag with a lot of earmarked money in one case, and perhaps a lack of funds in another. Senator BYRNES. You are familiar with the language of the bill? Mr. HOPKINS. Yes.

Senator BYRNS. There is a provision for making available unexpended balances?

Mr. HOPKINS. Yes.

Senator BYRNES. Do you happen to know how much would be available by tht language making available unexpended balances? Mr. HOPKINS. I do not think there is any intention to make any substantial amount available. I think the purpose of that is that if we find we need, before Congress gets back, a modest sum, it might be available.

Senator HALE. There was something said about $574,000,000.

Mr. HOPKINS. There is no intention of making such an amount as that available. We are in a situation where, in my opinion, some real emergency may arise which would make that very necessary. Senator BYRNES. This language here would cover that?

Mr. HOPKINS. Yes.

Senator MCKELLAR (presiding). Thank you very much, Mr. Hopkins.

Senator HALE. How much would it make available?

to t

Mr. HOPKINS. I do not know.

STATEMENT OF HON. PAT. MCCARRAN, A SENATOR IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NEVADA

Senator MCCARRAN. Mr. Chairman, we have post offices constructed by the Government with surroundings and conditions that they are unsafe. I have in mind my own city of Reno, Nev. I submit to the committee some photographs showing the surroundings of that post-office building, and the necessity for a little amendment to this bill that carries no additional appropriation.

The Truckee River borders on the ground on which the new post office is constructed. It is a very fine building. It requires a retaining wall to protect it. I took the matter up with the Treasury Department, with Mr. Roberts, who referred me to Admiral Peoples, who is in charge of that work, from whom I received this letter:

Referring to your inquiry today regarding the construction of a retaining wall and pavement in connection with the Reno Federal Building, I have investigated the matter and am of the opinion that authority should be granted to improve that portion of the site lying between the present building line and the Truckee River.

It is believed that this can be accomplished by amending the bill H.R. 9830That is the bill now before the committee

by striking out the word "or" following the word "remodeling" in line 1, page 73, of said bill, which is now pending before the Senate, and by inserting the words "improvements to buildings and/or grounds" after the word "extension" and before the word "of" in line 1, page 73, of said bill.

Senator MCKELLAR. Would not that be legislation?

Senator BYRNES. Does that property belong to the United States Government?

Senator MCCARRAN. Yes. The Truckee River is a turbulent river, especially in the springtime. I have had it up several times with the Post Office Department. It is simply a matter of protecting Government property.

Senator BYRNES. This is general language, which would give authority to improve the grounds around all buildings in the United

States.

Senator MCCARRAN. Where it is deemed necessary.

Senator BYRNES. Yes.

Senator DICKINSON. We could provide authority for the construction of a retaining wall on that particular property. Then it would not be included in the bill each succeeding year. This is general language.

Senator HAYDEN. It could be done that way, or a certain amount of this appropriation could be used for that purpose.

Senator MCCARRAN. Authority of some kind is necessary in order to properly protect that Government property.

Senator MCKELLAR. Is there anything else?

Senator MCCARRAN. That is all.

Senator MCKELLAR (presiding). The committee will adjourn until tomorrow at 10:30.

(Whereupon, at 12:25 p.m., the committee adjourned until the following day, Saturday, June 9, 1934, at 10:30 a.m.)

ADDITIONAL APPROPRIATIONS FOR EMERGENCY

PURPOSES

SATURDAY, JUNE 9, 1934

UNITED STATES SENATE,

SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE COMMITTEE OF APPROPRIATIONS,

Washington, D.C. The subcommittee met, pursuant to adjournment, at 10:30 a.m., in the committee room, Capitol, Senator Alva B. Adams presiding. Present: Senators Adams (chairman), McKellar, Hayden, Byrnes, Hale, and Dickinson.

Senator ADAMS. The committee will come to order.
We will hear Senator Dill.

TRAIL SMELTER

STATEMENT OF HON. CLARENCE C. DILL, A UNITED STATES SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF WASHINGTON

Senator DILL. Mr. Chairman, I have come before this committee this morning to talk to you for a moment about the developments and the difficulties we are having in connection with the trail smelter located along the Canadian line.

Senator MCKELLAR. What item is that?

Senator DILL. There is no item in here.

I have been before this committee in the past and the committee has been very kind to me. In fact, in the last appropriation bill you put in $20,000 for this matter, and the House refused to agree to it. The House has been taking the position-the House Members have that they want to stop this thing-that it has been going on continually and they want to stop it.

Senator HALE. Was that stricken out in conference?

Senator DILL. It was.

It happens that the State Department has been making real progress in moving toward an arbitration of this matter.

Senator MCKELLAR. Senator, as I remember, this came up in the regular State, Commerce, Justice, and Labor bill, and the reason it was left out was because there was not an estimate for it.

Senator DILL. The House opposed it, I understand.

STATEMENT OF JACOB A. METZGER, LEGAL ADVISER, STATE DEPARTMENT

Mr. METZGER. It was estimated for, sent to the Director of the Budget, and the Director of the Budget rejected it, so it was not in the regular appropriation bill.

66572-34---7

95

Senator MCKELLAR. That is my understanding. That is my recollection.

Senator DILL. It was put in the bill, and the Members of the House objected to it, and the objection was largely on the ground that they have been spending this money, and we have not been making any progress; and Mr. Metzger is here, and I would like for him to tell what progress they have made that seems to make it necessary that we should not discontinue the appropriaiton with the 1st of July. Senator MCKELLAR. I think that we would be glad to hear Mr. Metzger.

Senator DILL. I think we might put this in and take it to conference and see what we can do with it. I think that we might get along with it that way.

I would like for you to hear Mr. Metzger.

GENERAL STATEMENT

Senator ADAMS. We will be glad to hear Mr. Metzger. Will you give your name to the reporter and tell us just what your representation is.

Mr. METZGER. My name is J. A. Metzger, assistant legal adviser, State Department.

We have been in correspondence with the Canadian Government since February 1933, endeavoring to reach an agreement by which this trouble in some manner can be settled.

We were unable to make any progress. The Canadians did not even answer our communications until December-end of December 1933-and upon receiving their note we began having active conversations.

In March a representative of the Canadian Government came to Washington, and he and I formulated a tentative draft of an agreement, in effect providing for the submission of the matter to a neutral tribunal, a tribunal to be comprised of one judge designated by each country and a neutral judge selected by the two countries.

We formulated a draft of an agreement which he thought might be acceptable to Canada and which I thought might be acceptable on the part of the United States.

We heard nothing from them for several months. That was in March. Well, we heard nothing from them for a month, until about the middle of April, when we conferred further with the representatives of the property owners in the State of Washington, and also we had a conference with the Senators of the State and Congressman Hill, from the district in which this land is situated, and as a result of those conferences it was thought desirable to make some changes of the draft that we had tentatively formulated.

We proposed those changes to the Canadian Government, and after some further delay we were informed by the Canadian authorities at the end of May that they were ready to discuss the final terms, and they suggested that it would be advisable for some one from here to go to Ottawa. As a result I was sent to Ottawa and we had extensive discussions there. There were two difficulties. The first was whether $350,000, which the International Joint Commission recommended should be paid in settlement of damages occurring

pric was

aut

Es

are

to