letter, with regard to Senate bill 2320, Seventy-third Congress, which is nearly identical with the bill which is the subject of this letter.

Sincerely yours,

CORDELL HULL.

[Source: Russian Railway Service Corps, providing an honorable discharge for the members of, from the military service of the United States. Hearing before the Committee on Military Affairs, House of Representatives, 67th Cong., 2d sess. on S. 28. Tuesday, June 20, 1922; Friday, June 23, 1922: pt. 2. Government Printing Office, Washington, p. 32.]

"Mr. QUIN. What is the objection to having the men in that corps, and who were in the service of the United States Government, given the status of any other soldiers that had on the uniform of the United States Government during the war?

'Mr. POOLE. So far as the State Department is concerned, there is no objection. The attitude of the State Department, so far as I am authorized to speak for it, is this: The Department is fully appreciative of the service these men performed, and believes that they should receive every possible consideration, but as to whether this particular bill should be passed or not, is of course, a question that you must decide. As to the particular form that our appreciation of these men shall take, that is another matter.'''

We disapprove of H. R. 4463, the Russian Railway Service Corps bill, because its officers seek now to be given a military status which they never had, were notified of this, and were upon notice of their status. Moreover, they were paid by the Russian Government at higher salaries than similar ranks in the United States Army and their promotion was not in the hands of the United States Government.

We believe that it is unwise to interfere in the proper administration of the United States Army and that such acts by Congress will be harmful to military discipline and expensive.

A copy of the letter sent to all applicants for the Russian Railway Service Corps shows: "The Russian Railway Service Corps was a semimilitary organization formed under the State Department for service on Siberian Railways. The members of the corps had the legal status of civilian employees of the State Department." Their records were kept by the State Department, not the War Department, and are in the State Department today.

The notes of the conference, Washington, D. C., September 15, 1917, made the following statement: "Men sent from the United States must have corresponding military rank with the present officers of the Russian railways in order that no confusion or question of authority may arise.

"The Russian Government will pay the railway men from the United States salaries as may be determined by Mr. Felton for the rank they occupy, depositing the sums monthly in such bank as may be designated by the individual. In addition thereto, when in Russia, the Americans will be paid such additional allowances as may be necessary to enable them to meet their expenses and which allowances will be determined by Mr. Stevens, Chairman of the Railway Commission, in conference with the Russian Railway authorities in Russia."

There were approximately 411 men designated in various ranks under the foregoing circumstances. They wore a uniform similar to the one worn by officers in the American Army as did others who_belonged to semimilitary organizations, such as the American Red Cross, the Y. M. C. A., the Knights of Columbus, the Salvation Army and others.

The following were pay schedules of the Russian Railway group as against officers in the United States Army:

In addition, expenses in Russia were to be granted to members of the Russian Railway Service Corps. Expenses of Army officers on foreign service, as on any other service, are paid by the individual officer.

The members of the Russian Railway Service Corps were not subject to military discipline and their promotion was in the hands of Colonel Emerson, the Commander of the Corps, who was not an officer in the Army of the United States.

There is no record in the War Department indicating that members of the Corps attended any training camp or received_any_course of instruction. They assembled for the first time in San Francisco, whence they sailed for Vladivostok on the United States Transport Thomas on November 9, 1917. Prior to such sailing there was considerable inquiry by the members in regard to whether or not warrisk insurance could be taken by them. It was decided that as they were not members of the United States Military Establishment they could not take advantage of such insurance. It would therefore seem that the nonmilitary status of these men should have been known to them before they departed for Russia.

The members of this corps were promoted by Colonel Emerson under whom the corps directly operated. The procedure followed was as follows: Colonel Emerson appointed the member to higher grade; he then notified Mr. Felton through the Secretary of State of such appointment and the Secretary of State transmitted the notification of appointment to the Secretary of War who in turn referred the notification of appointment to The Adjutant General so that the records of those members whose appointment to their original positions was confirmed by The Adjutant General might be changed. Thus, it is seen that the War Department acted merely as the keeper of records for this corps.

The evidence before the committee shows that these men were not in the military service of the United States, that the second paragraph of the application for appointment in the Russian Railway Service Corps read as follows:

It is understood that any commission held in this corps does not apply in the United States Army.

The commission which was given them was not on G. O. form no. 650-6 or in any way similar to it.

The War Department is opposed to these men being granted the status of former soldiers because such action would only serve to encourage thousands of former members of semimilitary organizations to promote similar legislation. We agree that the position of the War Department is well taken and urge disapproval of the bill.

MAURY MAVERICK.
JOHN M. COSTELLO.
SAM L. COLLINS.

ADDITIONAL JUDGESHIP FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA

APRIL 2, 1935.-Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union and ordered to be printed

Mr. GREGORY, from the Committee on the Judiciary, submitted the following

REPORT

[To accompany H. R. 1414]

The Committee on the Judiciary, to whom was referred the bill, H. R. 1414, after consideration, report the same favorably with the recommendation that the bill do pass.

The State of Virginia is composed of two districts with one Federal judge for each district. There has been no increase in the number of Federal judicial districts or judgeships in Virginia since 1871, when the two Federal districts were created, more than 60 years ago. The eastern district consists of 51 of the 100 counties, with a population of 1,210,926 according to the 1930 census. The court sits at Richmond, Norfolk, and Alexandria. These cities are approximately 100 miles apart. Two regular terms a year are held in each.

Richmond and Norfolk are the largest and second largest cities in the State. A large number of navigable rivers and ports of entry at Norfolk, Portsmouth, and Newport News at the mouth of the Chesapeake Bay, contribute a large amount of admiralty litigation to the business of the eastern district.

During the last Congress a similar bill was reported favorably by the Committee on the Judiciary but did not reach consideration on the floor of the House. At that time committees from the Richmond Bar Association and the Norfolk and Portsmouth Bar Associations presented testimony and briefs to the committee which clearly demonstrate the desirability of creating an additional judgeship for the eastern district of Virginia.

О

H. Repts., 74-1, vol. 2