Page images
PDF
EPUB

(Witness: Zappone.)

1057

Mr. ZAPPONE. This report which I have here is for 1906, the last report of the Chief of the Weather Bureau.

The CHAIRMAN. No; but the first recommendation was when?

Mr. ZAPPONE. In the fall of 1902, being the fiscal year 1903. The stable also cost $2,000 in that year. In that year the appropriation act required the Weather Bureau to erect not less than six buildings. I will call attention to the fact that it erected seven buildings, one more than required by law.

The CHAIRMAN. What was the total appropriation?

Mr. ZAPPONE. The total appropriation was $48,000, if I recollect correctly.

The CHAIRMAN. What was the character of the other buildings?
Mr. ZAPPONE. Just the same as-

The CHAIRMAN. Observatories?

Mr. ZAPPONE. Yes, sir; they are all observatories; they are all alike; the buildings are standard in character.

The CHAIRMAN. There was $48,000 appropriated?

Mr. ZAPPONE. Yes.

The CHAIRMAN. And that was for not less than six buildings, and they did erect seven?

Mr. ZAPPONE. Yes; they did erect seven.

The CHAIRMAN. One of which cost $20,000; and that would leave $28.000 for the other six?

Mr. ZAPPONE. Yes; and they were all observatories; they were all observatory buildings, small observatory buildings. Outside of Mount Weather they were located at isolated points-for instance, Amarillo, Tex., and Modena, Utah. There is no other building within 200 miles of Modena; it is out on the prairie. Sand Key, Fla., is a little key out in the Gulf of Mexico, 10 miles south of Key West. Then we have another building at Southeast Farallone, which is an island out in the Pacific Ocean, about 26 miles below Point Reyes, Cal.

The CHAIRMAN. Just give the cost of the six buildings erected in the fiscal year 1903 as a part of your answer right here; give each building separate.

Mr. ZAPPONE. Amarillo, Tex., cost $7,758. Key West, Fla., cost $10,014.75. Modena, Utah, cost $4,000. I give these amounts in round numbers. Sand Key, Fla., cost $5,000, and Southeast Farallone cost $5,000.

The CHAIRMAN. Mount Weather?

Mr. ZAPPONE. That is five. There are five outside of Mount Weather.

The CHAIRMAN. There are two at Mount Weather?

Mr. ZAPPONE. Yes.

The CHAIRMAN. One of the buildings at Mount Weather cost $20,000?

Mr. ZAPPONE. Twenty thousand dollars.

The CHAIRMAN. What was the other?

Mr. ZAPPONE. The stable, at $2,000. I want to say, in connection with the main observatory at Mount Weather, that the original contract cost, if I remember properly, was something like the half of that, about $10,000 or $12,000, and the additional amount was for

23848-07- -67

(Witness: Zappone.)

additional repairs and alterations, which Professor Moore has explained. He explained that as the work progressed and the plan developed it was realized that more space would be required, and the third story of the building, which was originally designed as an attic story, was remodeled into office rooms, so as to get a square effect of ceiling and side walls and the

The CHAIRMAN. That appropriation provided for not less than six buildings, but the Department actually constructed seven buildings. Mr. ZAPPONE. Actually constructed seven.

The CHAIRMAN. Two of which were at Mount Weather?

Mr. ZAPPONE. Yes.

The CHAIRMAN. The total appropriation was $48,000?

Mr. ZAPPONE. That is what I recollect. I have not the bill here before me. It may have been the same amount as for the year 1903. The CHAIRMAN. If it was $48,000, you exceeded the appropriation by nearly $6,000 for that year.

Mr. ZAPPONE. Í explained that at Mount Weather the additional amount expended was for alterations and repairs. It made the expenses lap over into the next year, which is permissible under these laws for buildings which are enacted from year to year, and made the total cost of the administration building and stable about $20,000. It is under the provision which says that any balance remaining, meaning that any balance remaining after we have erected the number of buildings provided for by Congress, may be used for the further improvement, repair, and extension of any building that we may have or the erection of another building.

The CHAIRMAN. So that if there is any apparent excess it may be that you have used a surplus that came over from another year under the provision for repairs and improvement?

Mr. ZAPPONE. Yes; that was done nearly every year; at least every year toward the last, I think.

The CHAIRMAN. Could that be used for original construction? This is original construction.

Mr. ZAPPONE. Yes; after the original building is completed under the contract, or the terms of the contract are carried out, I should say that it complied with the law.

The CHAIRMAN. You would use any surplus that was left over to provide for repairs and improvement for construction proper?

Mr. ZAPPONE. Yes; but it is not required. A balance left from one year can be applied toward the improvement, repair, and alteration of other buildings owned by the Government or for partial construction. The law does not say that each building, in excess of the number specified by law, shall be completed.

The CHAIRMAN. Oh, no.

Mr. ZAPPONE. Because in that same law it says "repairs, alterations, and improvements." We could complete a building, or if, before its completion, we found some changes were necessary, we could go ahead and make them under that law, under the construction I place on it.

The CHAIRMAN. I suppose anything that came legitimately under the scope of repair and equipment you could legitimately do? Mr. ZAPPONE. Yes.

(Witness: Zappone.)

The CHAIRMAN. But if you had a balance left over after the construction of these buildings, not less than five or not less than sixthat is, if you had any surplus left over from the construction of the buildings under that provision, would you feel authorized to use that balance as a part for the construction of new buildings?

Mr. ZAPPONE. Most undoubtedly, sir; most undoubtedly, if the contract be made before the close of the fiscal year. A contract made before the close of a fiscal year may extend over into the next year and be completed in the next fiscal year. That is a provision of law, and we have followed that in some of these cases.

The CHAIRMAN. Has this been the practice of the Department? For instance, here is $53,000 in 1906, and if you contracted for not less than five buildings, and the contract did not exceed the $53,000, and that left you on hand, say, for the purpose of illustration, $5,000, and this next year you have another appropriation for not less than six buildings at $70,000, say, to illustrate, would the Department feel authorized, or has it been the practice of the Department, to take the sum left over from the previous appropriation, namely $5,000, and add it to the $70,000, making $75,000 in all, as a basis of original construction for the next year?

Mr. ZAPPONE. Mr. Chairman, that is hardly the way to put the question. That is, I can hardly base an answer on it. The Weather Bureau would not have any such thing in mind, for the reason that in the majority of cases the law for the next year would not have been passed at that time at all; so that they would have no knowledge of what their amount would be for the following year. The endeavor of the Weather Bureau has been to start these buildings in the early summer and try to have them completed before the 1st of January. Sometimes that is not possible and the construction will go over into the second half of the year, and will probably be finished in the early spring. It is very seldom that Congress has passed the large appropriation bills by that time, so that we would not know what the amount would be for the next year. But we would know at that time what balance we would have pertaining to the appropriation of that particular year, and that balance we could use for the repair and improvement of other buildings owned by the Weather Bureau. or make a contract for construction work, such as was done here in the case of one of the buildings at Mount Weather, the physical laboratory building. That building was not completed last year, and I think it will probably take two years to finish it.

The CHAIRMAN. Then, as I understand you, your idea is that you would not have any authority to use the balance for original construction, but would be confined to alteration, repair, improvement, and equipment, as to those balances that were left over.

Mr. ZAPPONE. You did not understand my reply, Mr. Chairman. The CHAIRMAN. I did not get your meaning?

Mr. ZAPPONE. No, sir; the balance can be used either for original construction or for repair and improvement.

The CHAIRMAN. Then what effect does that limitation have on that balance?

Mr. ZAPPONE. None whatever, because the entire lump sum is there to be used as the Secretary of Agriculture may direct. He

(Witness: Zappone.)

must erect five buildings under the law, and he may use any balance on other structures.

The CHAIRMAN. Then this language in regard to alterations, repairs and improvements does not have any effect? That language might as well not have been used?

Mr. ZAPPONE. It does have effect. It gives opportunity to the Department to use any balance left over for repair and improvement of any other building owned by the Government and to equip them with apparatus and other things.

The CHAIRMAN. That is clearly within the proviso, because that is expressly provided for.

Mr. ZAPPONE. Yes; any balance remaining may be used for repair, improvement, and equipment.

The CHAIRMAN. Yes. In addition to that, is it the judgment of your Department that you can use it also for original construction! That is what I want to get at. I do not know that I make myself clear. Here is a proviso that at least undertakes, apparently, to limit the expenditure of any balance of the sum that is used in the construction of these buildings that are provided for, to repairs. improvements, and equipment. Now, what I want to get at is whether under the construction placed on that proviso by your Department, you would also have authority to use any part of that balance for new construction, original construction? Do I make it clear?

Mr. ZAPPONE. That is very clear to me, and I think we have such authority. I do not think there is any question about it. Say the balance is $3,000. We might be able to put up another small building for that amount.

The CHAIRMAN. Well, that is your idea about it; that is what I wanted to get at.

Mr. ZAPPONE. Yes; I feel quite sure that that language is broad enough to cover it.

Now, in the next fiscal year, 1904, the power house and balloon building was constructed at Mount Weather at a cost of $8,650. In that year the law provided for seven buildings, and the Bureau erected seven buildings.

The CHAIRMAN. One of those was at Mount Weather?

Mr. ZAPPONE. Yes; I have explained that. That was the power house and balloon building, which is one building.

The CHAIRMAN. Yes.

Mr. ZAPPONE. In the fiscal year 1905 the absolute building, or observatory, was erected at Mount Weather at a cost of about $6,500. Also the variation building, or observatory, at a cost of about $8,000. The law provided for five buildings that year, and only five buildings were erected.

In the fiscal year 1905 the kite building was also erected at Mount Weather at a cost of $3,000. While that is termed a building it is nothing more than a shelter for kites, as Professor Moore explained. There was also erected in that year a barn at Mount Weather, or a shed for storage purposes and for stabling the animals of some of the employees there, as explained by the Chief of the Weather Bureau. the cost of which was $900. I think it was stated yesterday that it was $400, but we did not have the figures with us at that time. The

(Witness: Zappone.)

farmhouse for workmen was also remodeled and repaired in that year at a cost of $1,300. In that case it is apparent that there was a balance which was applied to that purpose.

The CHAIRMAN. Yes.

Mr. ZAPPONE. In the next fiscal year, 1906, the physical laboratory was started, which will ultimately cost about $25,000, from the statement made by the Chief of the Weather Bureau. It is not set forth here as a building, as it is not yet completed. During the fiscal year 1906 the amount expended for that purpose was something like $10,000.

I merely make mention of these in detail to show that the Weather Bureau at no time has expended $250,000 for a single building in one year. Up to the present time $130,000 has been expended, according to Professor Moore's statement.

The CHAIRMAN. You mean at Mount Weather?

Mr. ZAPPONE. Yes: I am still speaking about Mount Weather; $130,000 up to the present time, and for buildings erected slowly, year by year, and which I have explained in detail. In his testimony before you the Chief of the Weather Bureau stated that the main object of the plant was submitted to the Committee on Agriculture in his annual report of 1903, which explains in detail the scope of the work and what they expected to accomplish at that point; and this was further amplified in the reports of the Chief of the Weather Bureau of the next year, 1904, and also in 1905 and in 1906. In other words, there has been mention of the work at that place in the reports of the Chief of the Weather Bureau for each year from its very inception.

The CHAIRMAN. When was the first building constructed at Mount Weather?

Mr. ZAPPONE. In the fall of 1902. I read you that.

The CHAIRMAN. Was the lot purchased the same year?

Mr. ZAPPONE. The lot was purchased the same year. The cost of the lot is also given here, and I should have said that the cost of the lots in every case has been included in the total amount that I have mentioned.

The CHAIRMAN. Yes.

Mr. ZAPPONE. Now, for instance. the main observatory building; the cost of the first site purchased was $2,000. A little later there was a second purchase made, I think, of 10 acres, costing $650, making a total of $2.650. Professor Moore, I believe, stated that it was $2,500, but he did not have the figures before him at that time. Mr. SAMUEL. Was the cost of those buildings charged up against the appropriation for the Weather Bureau?

Mr. ZAPPONE. They have, all been charged up against the appropriations for the Weather Bureau.

Mr. SAMUEL. I do not see it in this recapitulation.

Mr. ZAPPONE. They come in under it, but they are not in the recapitulation as a group, as that is not one of the groups suggested by your committee. They come under the head of the appropriation for Buildings, Weather Bureau," and appear under the group for " Miscellaneous supplies," etc.

Mr. SAMUEL. There is nothing about buildings here at all.

Mr. ZAPPONE. There is in the total. If you will go back a little

« PreviousContinue »