The CHAIRMAN. I want to ask you to read that article from the Wall Street Journal.

Mr. GARDNER. I would say in reference to that that Judge Olcott made an examination of these things. The Wall Street Journal of the 20th did state that there would be no peace message.

The CHAIRMAN. I would like you to read that to the committee, if you will.

Mr. GARDNER. Do you know where it is?

The CHAIRMAN. I had not seen it. This is the first I had heard of it.

Mr. GARDNER. I have no further statement to make, but I would be very glad if you would ask any questions that may be desired.

As

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Gardner, you have no evidence, as I understand it, that would connect any one at the White House with the so-called "leak" and make no charge in regard to any individual? Mr. GARDNER. I make no charge in regard to any individual. for evidence, I have no evidence against anybody, except just anonymous letters and indefinite statements. Really, I have not had time to examine them. They have come since my statements on the floor of the House.

The CHAIRMAN. At this time, then, you have no reliable information, as I take it, from what you say, that would connect anybody at the White House with this leak?

Mr. GARDNER. Nor anywhere else.

The CHAIRMAN. Nor anywhere else?
Mr. GARDNER. No.

The CHAIRMAN. And that applies, of course, to the State Department as well as to the White House?

Mr. GARDNER. I have not any evidence that I consider worth the paper it is written on, to connect anybody with it. It is just exactly as if you saw a leak on that ceiling [indicating]. You would say, "There is the leak." It stands right out to your eyesight. I do not know where it came from.

The CHAIRMAN. Now, if you will read that to the committee. Mr. GARDNER. The heading is "President Watching the War." Subheading, "No Peace Manifesto from the White House Expected under Present Conditions."

WASHINGTON.

The President will not issue any peace manifesto in the near future, nor does he contemplate any move at this time. He is watching developments closely, but will not make any move that would be misconstrued. He is waiting with interest for formal reply of allies, and the attitude of Germany towards that reply.

The CHAIRMAN. Let me see that.

Mr. CHIPERFIELD. Are you willing we should incorporate that in the record?

Mr. CAMPBELL. It is in the record now.

The CHAIRMAN. It is dated Washington, December 20.

Mr. HARRISON. We have some others of the Wall Street Journal.

Mr. GARDNER. What part is that, the first or second part?

Mr. CHIPERFIELD. Read enough to identify that particular paper, if you will, Mr. Gardner.

Mr. GARDNER. Wall Street Journal, evening edition, New York, Wednesday, December 20, 1916, volume 68, No. 142.

75295-17-PT 22

Mr. CHIPERFIELD. And state if there appears anywhere a statement as to the publisher.

Mr. GARDNER. This is the evening edition, published by Dow, Jones & Co., C. W. Barron, president.

The CHAIRMAN. Now, Mr. Gardner, do you know the name of the correspondent who sent that statement?

Mr. GARDNER. No, indeed, I do not know anything about it. The CHAIRMAN. Will you help the committee to get the name? Mr. GARDNER. I will be perfectly willing, in the amount of time I have got.

The CHAIRMAN. I think, Mr. Gardner, you might very conveniently help us to get the name of the correspondent.

Mr. GARDNER. Surely, I would be very glad to.

The CHAIRMAN. Was there anything in any of the other New York journals of that kind that corresponded with that statement from Washington?

Mr. GARDNER. Why, I do not know; I tell you, this has been trying to get things up pretty quick. I had to speak before the Detroit Real Estate Board night before last, and I got in from New York last evening.

The CHAIRMAN. I thought somebody had called your attention to it?

Mr. GARDNER. Judge Olcott will be here Monday.

The CHAIRMAN. There is one other paper, Financial America.
Mr. GARDNER. And the New York Commercial.

The CHAIRMAN. No member has examined the Financial America?
Mr. CHIPERFIELD. Mr. Harrison mentioned that.

Mr. HARRISON. The Financial America?

The CHAIRMAN. You have not examined the Financial America, then?

Mr. GARDNER. No; I have not.

Mr. CHIPERFIELD. Mr. Chairman, suppose we request that paper to send us in copies of their editions about that time.

Mr. GARDNER. I can look it up.

Mr. CHIPERFIELD. They will send it in on our request.

Mr. HARRISON. I would say, Mr. Chairman, in that connection, since you are talking about the name, I gave the names of all the representatives of both the Wall Street Journal, which is published by Dow, Jones & Co., and also the representative of the Financial America.

The CHAIRMAN. Have you those names before you?

Mr. HARRISON. Yes.

The CHAIRMAN. Let me have them just a moment.

(Mr. Harrison handed papers to the chairman.)

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Gardner, do you know John Boyle, of Washington, said to be connected with the Wall Street Journal and with Dow, Jones & Co. ?

Mr. GARDNER. I do not know that I know him. I know a great many newspaper men around the Capitol whom I am on friendly terms with, and I hope I know Mr. Boyle; if I say I do not know him I do not place him, anyway.

The CHAIRMAN. Do you know Mr. Harry Eland?

Mr. GARDNER. The same answer. I do not place him to know him by name.

The CHAIRMAN. He is said to be connected with the Wall Street Journal. Do you know John Walsh, in Washington?

Mr. GARDNER. I will have to apologize to these gentlemen. As far as I know I have not got those faces connected with those names. The CHAIRMAN. Do you know W. A. Crawford?

Mr. GARDNER. The same answer.

The CHAIRMAN. Earnest Knorr, jr.?

Mr. GARDNER. Well, I think I do, because that name seems familiar but I can not place him at all.

The CHAIRMAN. Earnest H. Korr, jr.?

Mr. GARDNER. That is all I can say; I think I do.

The CHAIRMAN. Nelson M. Sheppard?

Mr. GARDNER. The same answer.

the name.

The CHAIRMAN. And A. Jamieson ?

Mr. GARDNER. The same answer.

I do not connect the man with

The CHAIRMAN. These gentlemen are supposed to be connected with the Financial America.

Mr. HARRISON. In that connection, I understand there is another paper, the New York Commercial, and I would suggest that we get copies of that also, and subpoena their representative, who is Mr. Iden. I do not know his initials.

Mr. BENNET. If you get the New York Commercial you might as well get the New York Sun and New York Herald.

Mr. HARRISON. The Journal of Commerce.

Mr. BENNET. The New York Journal of Commerce, the StaatsZeitung, the Daily News. The Journal of Commerce and Daily Commercial are daily papers that have a trend toward commercial news, but do not make a specialty of Wall Street news, as does the Wall Street Journal, and apparently this other paper, of which I will frankly say I never heard.

Mr. GARRETT. Mr. Chairman, I wish to ask a few questions. I am not sure but that they may be subject to objection, as it will be in line with the objection that has been made; and if objection be made I shall withdraw the questions.

I want to ask Mr. Gardner generally about the policy of ordering the investigation. One of the things which the committee will have to determine will involve the question of policy, and I want to ask you this: What do you think would be accomplished by the investigation, assuming that a leak is shown from somewhere?

Mr. GARDNER. Well, my primary object I stated was that I wanted what the chairman said about Mr. Lawson, "to put up or shut up," but I wanted it done publicly, that is to say; that was my primary interest in the whole matter. Of course, afterwards I got mixed up in the fight with you gentlemen. You know when there are two sides fighting each other it becomes a little different from my experience; but substantially speaking it was because I was beside myself with anger when I saw that statement of Mr. Lawson, and more so when I found people on the train, every one saying, "By gosh, that fellow uses a lot of smart adjectives. He can sling English, can't he? I do not suppose what he says is true, but he can sling English, you have got to admit. He is a pretty hard man to catch in a mistake," and all that sort of thing. I said, "Look here, the House of Representatives is never going to stand that kind of

thing. He has got to make good on that." Then, it seems to me, for exactly the reasons I have stated, I thought Mr. Henry was making a mistake not to say, "Come on, and we will have the whole city of Washington listen to what you have to say, and we will give you 10 hours and all the help you need to prove one single word;" and that is why I wanted that investigation; that is what started me off. I said to myself, "The House of Representatives is not at the mercy of the Committee on Rules in that sort of thing, when Congress has been slandered like that. There may be some remedies by privilege."

Mr. GARRETT. Mr. Chairman, if you will permit me, I want to

make this statement.

Mr. CHIPERFIELD. I will waive any expression of objection for the pleasure of hearing the novel language used by the gentleman on the stand.

Mr. GARRETT. I want to make this statement if I may be permitted: We have before us two distinct resolutions, the House resolution No. 429, which was referred to us by action of the House itself. That was held to be privileged, because of language that was recited in the preamble, supposed to reflect in some way upon the membership of the House. That other resolution is No. 420, I believe, which was introduced just before the holidays, I think on the day that the House adjourned.

I have not discussed this matter with the chairman of this committee, but in so far as I have read the controversy in the newspapers there was never at any time an intimation by the chairman of the Committee on Rules that the committee would not be called together to consider House resolution No. 420. House resolution No. 420 did not involve the House at all, nor any Member of the House, nor was there any reflection in it.

Subsequently, Mr. Lawson gave out an interview, which contained language that is supposed to reflect upon the membership of the House. Thereupon, the chairman of the committee invited him, through the press and perhaps by telegram-I don't knowto come and consult with him touching this matter. There was never an intimation-and I think it is fair to the chairman of this committee that it should be known-that there was never any intimation given out by him at any time or in any manner that this committee would not be glad to consider the original resolution introduced by Mr. Wood.

Mr. GARDNER. Very likely

Mr. GARRETT. The other proposition, when the reflection came upon Members of the House, he immediately sought, and there was a conference between him and Mr. Lawson touching those matters. The chairman has stated publicly that he was unable to give any names, nothing that reflected upon the membership of the House in any way; and it is admitted now-nobody claims that there has ever been even a rumor that any Member of the House was in any sort of a way involved.

Mr. GARDNER. Lawson says so. Lawson says that the House is involved, or by implication he says so. I know what you say about the threats also, but the folks at home are not examining things with a microscope in the way we are doing down here, but in a general way it looked as though we were not going to investigate, to be frank

with you.
I came on here that morning, Wednesday, and some one
of the newspaper men-I do not know his name came up to me
and said, "What have you got new on this Jim Mann matter?" I
said, "I happen to be interested this morning in the Tom Lawson
business," and he said, "Oh, that is all dead." There is the impres-
sion that had got abroad.

The CHAIRMAN. If the gentlemen will allow me, the chair is not
troubled about this matter at all. The first resolution Mr. Wood
introduced was the one referred to the Committee on Rules, and in
a day or so Mr. Wood and I had a conference about this, a very
pleasant conference, and the matter was not closed between him and
myself, but I was waiting for him to secure certain telegrams and
letters that were sent to the West, and the matter was left open.
About that time Mr. Lawson came out in the papers and made his
statement. I am not going into the conference between him and
myself, but he came to Washington and we did confer. Then the
chair gave out a statement that so far as Mr. Lawson and the chair
were concerned the matter was ended. But I told all the newspaper
correspondents and anyone else coming to me that the other matter
was not concluded and was still open, and I always said that if any
sort of information was lodged with the chair the Committee on Rules
would be promptly convened. Now, Mr. Gardner, every day per-
haps a dozen Members and others came to the chair about matters
pending before the Committee on Rules, and there are a great many
resolutions pending there, and necessarily some preliminary investi-
gation has to be made by the chairman before troubling the committee
with meeting to consider them. There are numbers of matters there
that perhaps certain members of the committee have not head of,
that they can go and examine whenever they want to. But as far
as the chair was concerned, this matter was left open, and Mr. Wood
was to come again, and I never had any idea of foreclosing it, and
up to this time have not and always thought that there should be a
very thorough investigation if there were a preliminary case made out.
I never had any other idea about it, no matter what impression may
have gained currency, and I thank Mr. Garrett for what he has said,
and make that statement not that I feel at all annoyed about it, but
as chairman of the Committee on Rules I have certain duties to
perform and, of course, I am trying to do that.

Mr. CHIPERFIELD. Accepting, as I do, at the full value and worth
the statement of the chairman of the committee, then I think we
ought to have further indignation expressed toward the very unau-
thorized statement that appeared from Lawson, as I understand, in
the New York papers, to the effect that when he left here there was
an understanding with the chairman of this committee that there
should not be any further investigation, and as long as the chairman
is making a statement I think he ought to include that.

The CHAIRMAN. When Mr. Lawson comes and makes his statement,
no one will be left in doubt about the attitude of the chairman.
Mr. CHIPERFIELD. I am not in doubt.

The CHAIRMAN. I understand. No one will be left in doubt about
the attitude of the chairman, and the exact facts as I have stated
them here this morning. When he has finished his statement, no one
will doubt.