(Witness: Moore.)

Mr. SAMUEL. There is not any insurance legislation. There may be regulations of insurance companies.

The CHAIRMAN. That is what I mean. Insurance regulations, I should have said.

Professor MOORE. The insurance underwriters have discussed whether or not they would cancel the insurance of a vessel where a captain leaves port in spite of the warning; but I understand that no definite decision has been reached in regard to it.

The CHAIRMAN. The case of the Portland is the most striking illustration of disaster following from a failure to regard the warning of the Bureau?

Professor MOORE. Yes.

Mr. SAMUEL. Where they carry passengers, there should be some such legislation.

The CHAIRMAN. There is not any such legislation, however.

Professor MOORE. There is just one further thing that I want to mention, Mr. Chairman, and that is the wonderful possibilities of utilizing wireless telegraphy in this meteorological work.

I was a member of a board appointed by the President to discuss and consider the whole problem of Government control of wireless communication. Three members of this board attended an international meeting in Germany recently. As a member of that board, I wrote in the provisions that I would like to have inserted in the international agreement, when it finally comes, to compel all vessels of a certain tonnage to carry wireless instruments, to have them licensed to carry wireless instruments, and to compel them to take a midday meteorological observation at least of the pressure of the air and the direction of the wind; then compel them to transmit that observation outward, and to transmit every other observation that they might receive. So that in the space of a few hours the entire North Atlantic would be swept clean of its observations and our central office in Washington and, say, the central office in Paris or in London would have the meteorological data taken from every ship floating on the Atlantic Ocean.

We will take the case at Washington. Here we get a chart of the Atlantic Ocean

The CHAIRMAN. Yes; you would have to give a location in order to make the information intelligible and valuable.

Professor MoORE. Oh, certainly. The master of each vessel would be equipped with a chart, so that he could send just one number which would indicate his latitude and longitude closely enough, and then the pressure of the air and the velocity of the wind or the direction and estimated force of the wind. Then here at Washington we would be able to make a chart, say, of the Atlantic Ocean this morning to locate a storm, if there were one, anywhere in the Atlantic Ocean. Then we would telegraph that information right back to the coast wireless stations here under the control of the Government, have them flash it to the first vessels that could receive it, and it in turn would flash it onward, and so on, across the ocean, so that in the space of two hours from the time the vessels took their observations they would get back to themselves, in return, a statement showing if there were any danger in any part of the Atlantic, and telling them what force and direction of wind they would get in pretty

(Witnesses: Moore, Zappone, Jacobs.)

nearly every part of the Atlantic. This could be done with a high degree of accuracy.

Why, that system of utilizing wireless telegraphy when all vessels of trade and commerce are equipped with wireless instruments and are operating under an international agreement, will make the transportation of the ocean safer than transportation on the street-car line out here. There is no question about it, and it is bound to comebound to come.

We already have arrangements with a number of the trans-Atlantic steamers, and some of those on the Pacific, also, to take and transmit to us observations when they are near enough to the shore so that we can get them. As yet we have no arrangements to transmit from one vessel to the other. That can only come when we have an international agreement that will compel each and every vessel to transmit all messages that it receives, no matter if they come from a competing company.

The CHAIRMAN. Wireless telegraph is still in its infancy, of course? Professor MoORE. Yes. This is one of the utilities that will come through the Weather Service. We now have quite a number of observations from vessels at sea coming into our office here every day.

I am convinced that my preliminary estimate of $30,000,000 as the annual return that the people of the country receive from the expenditure of less than $1,500,000 each year on the Weather Service is a conservative one.

The CHAIRMAN. Unless you think of something further, that will be all, I think, Professor Moore. Mr. Zappone, do you think of anything else?

Mr. ZAPPONE. I think of nothing else, Mr. Chairman.

The CHAIRMAN. We are very greatly obliged to you, Professor. Professor MOORE. I thank you, Mr. Chairman, for giving me all the latitude I wanted and for treating us so very fairly.

(The committee thereupon adjourned until Saturday, January 12, 1907, at 10 o'clock a. m.)

COMMITTEE ON EXPENDITURES IN THE
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE,
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,
January 12, 1907.

The committee met this day.

Present, Hons. C. E. Littlefield (chairman), E. W. Samuel, and H. B. Flood.

STATEMENT OF MR. S. R. JACOBS, CHIEF OF THE MISCELLANEOUS DIVISION, OFFICE OF THE AUDITOR FOR THE STATE AND OTHER DEPARTMENTS.

(The witness was duly sworn by the chairman.) The CHAIRMAN. What position do you occupy?

Mr. JACOBS. I am chief of the miscellaneous division in the office of the Auditor for the State and other Departments.

(Witness: Jacobs.)

The CHAIRMAN. And as such is it your duty to audit the disbursements of the Department of Agriculture?

Mr. JACOBS. Yes, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. Calling your attention to the project that is now being constructed under the auspices of the Weather Bureau of the Department of Agriculture, known as "Mount Weather," I would like to inquire whether the disbursements on account of that project have passed through your office since the project has been under way? Mr. JACOBS. Yes, sir; they have.

The CHAIRMAN. The committee were advised by Mr. Moore that the only statutory authority that his Bureau had for the erection of this plant, upon which has already been expended about $130,000 and which contemplates an ultimate expenditure of $250,000 and an annual expenditure of something like $25,000 for maintenance, is found in the appropriation bill under the language reading:

BUILDINGS, WEATHER BUREAU: For the purchase of sites and the erection of not less than five buildings for use as Weather Bureau observatories, and for all necessary labor, materials, and expenses, plans and specifications to be prepared and approved by the Secretary of Agriculture, and work done under the supervision of the Chief of the Weather Bureau, including the purchase of instruments, furniture, supplies, flagstaffs, and storm-warning towers to properly equip these stations: Provided, That if any of the money for these several buildings remains unexpended for the special purposes for which it is appropriated, so much of it as is necessary may be expended for the repair, improvement, and equipment of any other buildings or grounds owned by the Government and occupied by the Weather Bureau, outside of the District of Columbia: And provided further, That a portion of the Federal building site at Springfield Illinois, fronting ninety feet on Monroe street and extending back at that width one hundred and sixty feet along Seventh street to paved alley, may be used as a site for one of the five buildings proposed above, and is hereby transferred to the Department of Agriculture for that purpose, fifty-three thousand dollars.

Will you please state whether your attention as auditing officer was called to these disbursements and the authority under which they were made; and, if so, what action you took thereon and what your view was in relation thereto?

Mr. JACOBS. About a year and a half ago, if I remember correctly, some question was raised about the expenditures at Mount Weather, and we looked particularly into the expenditures under that appropriation and found that a considerable portion of the money was being spent at Mount Weather; after looking over the entire matter very carefully and discussing it with the head of the office, Colonel Timme, who was then Auditor, we came to the conclusion that the law undoubtedly authorized the Secretary of Agriculture to spend the money in that way if he saw fit to do so. That is to say, to erect five or more buildings at different points in the United States, and as there is no limit nor statement of how much these buildings are to cost, the money which was not used for that purpose could be used for any other building.

The CHAIRMAN. Where do you find that language in the appropriation act?

Mr. JACOBS. The first proviso, "That if any of the money for these several buildings remains unexpended for the several purposes for which it is appropriated, so much of it as is necessary may be expended for the repair, improvement, and equipment of any other

(Witness: Jacobs.)

buildings or grounds owned by the Government and occupied by the Weather Bureau, outside of the District of Columbia."

The CHAIRMAN. In your judgment, as Auditor, does a provision for repair, improvement, and equipment, authorize original construction?

Mr. JACOBS. No; but it would be authorized as one of the original buildings. There is no limit to the number of buildings; "not less than five buildings; " you might build a hundred.

The CHAIRMAN. Is there anything in the proviso that would authorize the building of another plant? That is, do you find anything in the proviso outside of the words," repair, improvement, and equipment," that would authorize the building of a plant?

Mr. JACOBS. No, sir; it would be as one of the original buildings if it was an entirely new structure.

The CHAIRMAN. Under the language, "For the purchase of sites and the erection of not less than five buildings for use as Weather Bureau observatories, and for all necessary labor, materials, etc.," and "storm-warning towers to properly equip these stations," is it your view that the word "stations" there relates to the five buildings mentioned in the statute prior thereto?

Mr. JACOBS. The first portion undoubtedly means for the sites and erection of five or more buildings and equipping those five or more buildings.

The CHAIRMAN. Where do you get the language "or more buildings?

Mr. JACOBS. Simply because it says "not less than five." It does not say there shall be five, and that would authorize any number of new buildings "not less than five," and the first proviso would authorize the use of any of the money remaining after paying for the new buildings for repairs, improvements, and equipment of any existing building.

The CHAIRMAN. The appropriation was $53,000 for not less than five buildings. That would contemplate prima facie a little over $10,000 a building?

Mr. JACOBS. Not necessarily. It is entirely within the discretion of the Secretary of Agriculture.

The CHAIRMAN. While the appropriation provided for not less than five, would it be your construction that all those five could be put at one station?

Mr. JACOBS. The first two lines would seem to indicate the purchase of a site and the erection of a building thereon, a site and building together for these new structures.

The CHAIRMAN. The natural inference from that would be that the stations and buildings were contemporaneous?

Mr. JACOBS. Yes, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. And that there would be at least five.

What is

the view of your office that when there was a provision for not less

than five and an appropriation of $50,000 that it was open to the Department to originate one that would cost $250,000?

Mr. JACOBS. We would have no means of knowing that.

The CHAIRMAN. I just want to get your view of the construction of the statute.

(Witness: Jacobs.)

Mr. JACOBS. Naturally the Department would not, if their appropriation was limited to $50,000, go ahead and contract for a building to cost $250,000.

The CHAIRMAN. What they have done is to start a plant that has already cost $130,000, and which is expected to cost $250,000 under this specific appropriation. I want to get your idea whether under an appropriation for five sites and buildings, which, as you say, contemplates five separate sites, upon each of which was a buildingMr. JACOBS. That seems to be the intent of the law.

The CHAIRMAN. I would like to get your own view as to whether an appropriation that contemplated or that provided for the purchase of five sites and the location of a building on each of those sites and then limited the expenditure for that purpose or only appropriated for that purpose $53,000, would justify the Department in originating a plan that would cost ultimately $250,000?

Mr. JACOBS. If I understood the question correctly, that appropriation put to the utmost might authorize the purchase of five or more sites, and on one of those sites a completed building costing almost the entire appropriation might be erected.

The CHAIRMAN. Would it be your view-this may not be the proper construction, because I have not examined it with care, I want to see what in the view of your Department is possible under the appropriation. Would it be your view that an appropriation for either five or nine buildings, which would allow on its face from $12.000 to $15,000 for each site, with a building thereon, would be sufficient legal authority for the origination of a plant that would ultimately cost $250,000?

Mr. JACOBS. Yes; if the building erected under the first appropriation was a complete building in itself, that is to say, there might have been a site purchased and a completed building erected thereon in one year and in another year they may have erected another building or added to the first building.

The CHAIRMAN. Now, this appropriation provides for five buildings for use as observatories. Under that appropriation can they construct any buildings except for use as observatories, and, if so, where is the limit?

Mr. JACOBS. No; the new buildings under that would have to be used as Weather Bureau observatories.

The CHAIRMAN. There is only one observatory at the Mount Weather plant and there are other buildings needed for observatory purposes, such as experimental and development purposes. Would that be authorized under your construction of the statute?

Mr. JACOBS. I am assuming that the appropriations for prior years read the same as the one we have before us. I think they do

The CHAIRMAN (interrupting). I understand from Professor Moore that they are identical, except as they get larger.

Mr. JACOBS. It would be necessary for the building to come within the designation "Weather Bureau observatory" or else it must come in under the first proviso as "repair, improvement, and equipment " of an existing building, which may have been for an observatory or for any other purpose.