Mr. SCHAFER. Does that refer to quarters only, or to servants and other allowances?

Mr. SANGER. To quarters and allowances. Those other things were stipulated. There was another amendment later than that, which provided that no deduction should be made from patients' pensions for support.

Mr. SAVAGE. A part of this has been repealed. A part of that with reference to pensions has been repealed. There are some clauses included and others left out. I think the entire section should be repealed and rewritten.

Section 3236a, in this same volume, under the heading "Expenses for subsistence; traveling on duty," provides:

On and after July 1, 1914, unless otherwise expressly provided by law, no officer or employee of the United States shall be allowed or paid any sum in excess of expenses actually incurred for subsistence while traveling on duty outside of the District of Columbia and away from his designated post of duty, nor any sum for such expenses actually incurred in excess of $5 per day; nor shall any allowance or reimbursement for subsistence be paid to any officer or employee of any branch of the public service of the United States in the District of Columbia unless absent from his designated post of duty outside of the District of Columbia, and then only for the period of time actually engaged in the discharge of official duties.

That is the act approved April 6, 1917 (38 Stat. 318).

Mr. SANGER. That is general legislation. That does not relate specifically to this institution.

Mr. SAVAGE. I will now read section 3236b, United States Compiled Statutes, 1918, as follows:

The heads of executive departments and other Government establishments are authorized to prescribe per diem rates of allowance not exceeding $4 in lieu of subsistence to persons engaged in field work or traveling on official business outside of the District of Columbia and away from their designated posts of duty when not otherwise fixed by law. For the fiscal year 1916 and annually thereafter, estimates of appropriations from which per diem allowances are to be paid shall specifically state the rates of such allowances.

I gather from what was said here yesterday and on previous occasions that the hospital authorities take the position that a great deal of this authorization is implied, and that it has been the practice. They take the position that authority is implied from the practice, and so forth, and I cite these sections to show that the law absolutely prohibits any such allowance, or any allowances whatsoever, unless they are specifically provided for by law. That would preclude any assumption.

It directs him

Mr. SANGER. The act of 1920 specifically authorizes them. Mr. GOODWIN. Do you have a citation to that act? Mr. SANGER. It was put in the record yesterday. to allow it, and directs the comptroller to credit it. Mr. SCHAFER. Do you claim that the act of 1920 specifically authorizes payments for any allowances made prior to this act of 1920, which you state specifically authorizes them?

Mr. SANGER. In 1919, when the Comptroller raised the question, it was submitted to Congress, and Congress specifically directed it. Mr. SCHAFER. Did the act of 1920 refer to expenditures for allowances "heretofore" made, as well as those "hereafter" made?

Mr. SANGER. Well, there was no alternative pay roll in effect before 1920. That was the first time that question was raised. Quarters had been furnished from the beginning of the institution. At

that time we were paying the attendants only from $8 to $14 per month. They received their salaries and quarters.

Mr. SCHAFER. Just as at the soldiers' homes, where they paid attendants $40 and $50 per month, and furnished them quarters and subsistence.

Mr. SANGER. Yes, sir.

Mr. SCHAFER. That applies now to the Maywood Veterans' Bureau Hospital. They pay certain small salaries, and furnish rooms and board.

Mr. SANGER. When the Civil Service Commission advertises the examination, that is a part of the advertisement. That is contained in the notice. There is no question whatever about that.

Mr. SAVAGE. I will now call your attention to a statement appearing on page 1273 of the report of hearings before a subcommittee of the Committee on the District of Columbia, in the Sixty-ninth Congress. This whole matter was taken up at that time, and figures were submitted. On that page of the hearing there appears a table, covering coal consumption at St. Elizabeths Hospital for the 10-year period beginning with 1914, and ending with 1923. I would like to submit all these figures for the record.

(The statement referred to is as follows:)

Mr. Savage's report on fuel

Mr. SAVAGE. I show in that statement that enough money had been charged up for coal, to purchase, at the prevailing market rates during those years, 7.23 tons of coal per capita, or for each inmate of the hospital. That would be the average per capita, per annum, over that period of 10 years. Now, Mr. Sanger submitted his statement, in which he claimed that the average number of tons per patient per year was 6.16, and that the average number of tons per patient and employee, per year, was 4.78. Now, the figures which I submitted were based on estimates, because the reports of the hospital gave no clue as to what they had paid per ton for coal, or how many tons were purchased. Therefore, I was obliged to get the average prevailing prices for those years from the National Coal Association and make a computation based on the amount expended by the hospital, and the average daily population, and from that data I arrived at these figures. In doing so, I pointed out that as the average market price per carload of coal was reduced, they would be purchasing additional quantities, or larger quantities, and that, therefore, the per capita tonnage would be correspondingly higher. That was borne out by Mr. Sanger's report from which it seems the tonnage was higher. He included the employees, whereas I figured on the basis of the patients only. He put in a number of the employees. He said in that connection

It is necessary to take employees and all other liaison officers-Red Cross, Knights of Columbus, etc.-who may be in the hospital into consideration as it requires as much coal to keep these people warm as it does patients. Of the coal used approximately two-thirds is for generating electricity, manufacturing ice, and refrigeration, baking, cooking, etc., and only one-third, or 1.56 tons per patient per year, is used for heating.

Now, in Mr. Sanger's statement, he charges the coal account with that number of employees, throughout, just the same as he does in the case of the patients. He does not make any allowance for the fact that those employees are on duty but one-third of the time. If they should be included at all, they should be included for only onethird of the time. My attention was first called to this in the regular report of the hospital for the fiscal year ended June 30, 1920. The law requires the superintendent of St. Elizabeths Hospital to submit to Congress, or to the incoming Congress, on the first Monday in December, a detailed expense account, or a detailed account of the expenditures of the St. Elizabeths Hospital for the fiscal year last preceding, ending on June 30, last preceding. Now, I have here one of those detailed reports or expense accounts, in which, among other things, this item appears: "Fuel, $168,310.12."

Mr. GOODWIN. That is for what year?

Mr. SAVAGE. For 1920.

Mr. SANGER. That is a year when we had to purchase coal from the Bureau of Mines which was of very inferior quality.

Mr. SAVAGE. The amount is $168,310.12.

Mr. GOODWIN. That was for 1920.

Mr. SAVAGE. Yes, sir.

Mr. SCHAFER. Was that all of the money expended for coal in 1920?

Mr. SAVAGE. No, sir. Now, I am not referring to this as any criticism or any comment on the amount. I am simply setting this forth to show that the law requires a detailed expense account, and that this is not compliance with the law. They simply lump this, without giving any clue as to how many tons were purchased or how much was paid per ton. It simply shows the total expense. That same practice was followed in other years. Now, that was not all: You asked if that was the full amount expended for coal in one year.

Mr. SCHAFER. I wish the clerk would obtain the last report of this institution and furnish it to the committee.

Mr. SAVAGE. I have offered this table at page 1273 of the hearings for the record. Now, the main report for 1914, gave the amount of $76,033.84 paid for fuel. There was nothing additional reported for that year, 1914, but the main report for 1915 contains this item: "Fuel, $67,653.57." That appeared to be all that was expended for that year. The main report for 1916 contains this item, "Fuel, $59,237.07." That was the total reported for that year. For the year 1917, the main report contains this item, "Fuel, $42,375.64." Then, for the year 1918, there is an additional report, carrying over from 1917 the sum of $20,613.90, making a total of $62,980.54. But that was not all that was expended in that year.

Mr. SANGER. You refer to the "main report," but it is all one document.

Mr. SAVAGE. It is the entire report. I refer to this as the main report for 1920, but in this report there is an additional report for the amount carried forward from the previous year.

Mr. SANGER. We file a report at the end of each fiscal year, and all that is left over, or all that is paid after June 30, must go into the next year's report. We are compelled to do that by law as to payments made during that year. That is not optional with us at all, but we are compelled by law to do that.

Mr. SAVAGE. You file a report with Congress on the first Monday in December, do you not?

Mr. SANGER. No; our report is for the year ending June 30. We make a supplementary report.

Mr. SAVAGE. You have to submit this report to some other authority on June 30, do you not? Is that the report you submit to the department?

Mr. SANGER. We have to submit a report to Congress each year, covering the fiscal year ending June 30.

Mr. SAVAGE. Do you not have to submit that report at the opening of Congress, on the first Monday in December?

Mr. SANGER. It must be filed at the opening of Congress, but it covers the fiscal year ending June 30. That is not optional with us,

but the law requires us to make our reports covering that period. Our reports cover the transactions for the fiscal year ending June 30. That is the law and the hospital must comply with it. Any additional amounts expended on account of the fiscal year are supplementary and go into the report for the next year.

Mr. GOODWIN. That is, all items that are not closed on June 30 are carried into the next fiscal year?

Mr. SANGER. Yes, sir.

Mr. GOODWIN. It shows the transactions for the fiscal year?

Mr. SANGER. Yes, sir; and there is a supplementary report. The annual report for the fiscal year covers the financial transactions of that fiscal year. That is not optional with the hospital. There are not two reports made.

Mr. SAVAGE. I would like to understand that: You say you have to file this report on the first Monday in December?

Mr. SANGER. Yes.

Mr. SAVAGE. A detailed report.

Mr. SANGER. We have to file it with the department before that. Mr. SAVAGE. That is what I was asking about.

Mr. SANGER. It is printed. We do not know when it is sent in. Mr. SAVAGE. Do you prepare that report prior to June 30?

Mr. SANGER. No. It goes to the department by September 15, under the law.

Mr. SAVAGE. Could you not give those items for the year ending June 30th?

Doctor WHITE. All of them are not paid during the year.

Mr. SAVAGE. They are not paid during the year?

Doctor WHITE. No.

Mr. SAVAGE. You could not have anything in that is not paid. Doctor WHITE. There may be bills not due.

Mr. GOODWIN. For instance, a purchase might be made on May 25, and the bill may not be paid until after June 30.

over.

Mr. SANGER. You might take the last two years as a fair example: The District of Columbia has not had sufficient money to reimburse St. Elizabeths Hospital for the care of its patients, and that is carried A good deal of the bills would have to wait until the following December in order to get a deficiency appropriation through Congress. Now, in those years we had bills for material furnished and material used, and, instead of holding those bills, and losing the benefit of the discount, we hold up the bills of another branch of the Government, like the bills for fuel, because there is no loss of discount there. That would not cost the Government anything, and those bills were not paid until later in the next year. Of course, we can not say in our report that we have actually paid out more money than we have paid. That would be a false statement.

Mr. SAVAGE. That is, the expense was incurred but the disbursement had not been made.

Mr. SANGER. Yes; that is true.

Mr. SAVAGE. I think I was down to 1918. The report for 1918 shows for fuel, $76,056.24, and additional, in the 1919 report, the sum of $25,930.02, making a total of $101,988.26. The total in the main report for 1919 was $27,177.31, and the additional in the report for 1920 is $74,420.71, making a total of $98,598.02. For 1920, the