Secretary Knox. I know that Mr. Bacon's portrait was given by Mr. Bacon himself. If the Root portrait was painted and paid for while I have been Secretary of State I would have no doubt it was paid for out of the emergency fund, just as the portraits have been paid for since 1890. Mr. DENT. You think the same course would have been followed? Secretary Kxox. I think so; it is altogether likely, but I will ascertain that and let you know. The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Secretary, you do not commit yourself to the idea that a larger sum of money than is due an individual and receipted for by him should be drawn out of a fund in the department, do you? Secretary KNOX. That it is proper to do that? The CHAIRMAN. That a man will be required to receipt for more money than he actually draws? Secretary Knox. Certainly not; I should say that is a very irregular practice. The CHAIRMAN. Unquestionably. Then, if this voucher contained only Mr. Rosenthal's signature and he only got $850 but the voucher called for $2.450, it would be inexcusable and execrable, would it not? Secretary Knox. Well, I would call it very bad bookkeeping, to say the least about it, and it puts the burden on the man who made it to explain it. The CHAIRMAN. The difference between $850 and $2.450 is $1,600. Now, if that $1,600 were paid out for other legitimate expenses of the department, the parties to whom that was paid would also sign a voucher, would they not? Secretary Knox. Yes. The CHAIRMAN. Unquestionably. Secretary KNOX. They should do so. The CHAIRMAN. And a voucher would be found to cover the payment? Secretary KNOX. It should be. The CHAIRMAN. And this voucher would have to go to the disbursing officer? Secretary KNOX. I have had some practical knowledge of bookkeeping in business, and I say it should be in order to be consistent with proper accounting. I think, however, the President is right in his construction of the statute that I read some time ago, but I think a situation might arise where some people, under the authority of the President, could use money without any record. The CHAIRMAN. That may be true; but Secretary KNOX. But that is a very extreme view. The CHAIRMAN. Do you think the painting of a portrait ought to be paid for out of the secret fund? Now, you quote from the Polk message Mr. DENT. If it is true that the President has a right to use that secret fund, how can he use one voucher and intermingle the secret fund with a fund of the nature under investigation? Secretary KNOX. Well, now, you are asking another question. Your first question had relation to the expenditure of $1,600. I am not quoting that as applicable to the $850, but as possibly applicable to the $1,600 that Mr. Rosenthal did not get. E The CHAIRMAN. But no officer could properly and legitimately withdraw from the funds of the Government more money over my signature than was coming to me, could he? Secretary KNOX. From my standpoint, absolutely not. Mr. DENT. In other words, the President, under authority of section 291, could expend certain moneys in regard to international affairs without having any vouchers or making any record in any way? Secretary KNOx. I think there would be no doubt about it. If the President of the United States found it was necessary in a critical situation to spend $25,000, he would do it without making any record of it at all. The CHAIRMAN. No voucher for that; but do you believe that the President could pay for the painting of a portrait out of that fund and then refuse to account or explain that purpose? Secretary KNOX. Well, I do not understand that the President has refused to explain the amount of money that was spent for the portrait. The CHAIRMAN. Well, the letters will speak for themselves. Secretary KNOX. I think the testimony before this committee is perfectly explicit and clear on that point. The CHAIRMAN. The point I am making is this: We agree with you that the President may expend this emergency fund under the statute, and he may do it even without having a voucher or explaining it to anybody, but do you believe that any President could pay me for a horse that is, purchase a horse from me to-day, for instance and pay for it out of the emergency fund and then refuse to account to the Government on the theory that he is protected under that statute? Secretary KNOX. If he thought that horse was necessary for international intercourse, I think he could. The CHAIRMAN. But it would take a very rash presumption upon the part of any man to conclude anything of that kind, would it not? Secretary KNOX. Well, as I said a moment ago, you are a lawyer, and you were good enough to say that I am, and this is all a question of the construction of the statute. Your opinion is certainly as good as mine. I believe, however, that under the law you can not go behind the President's decision. I think this discretion is lodged in the President. That is my own personal judgment about it. (Thereupon the committee adjourned.) HEARINGS BEFORE THE SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE COMMITTEE ON EXPENDITURES IN THE STATE DEPARTMENT HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES ON HOUSE RESOLUTION NO. 103 TO INVESTIGATE THE EXPENDITURES IN JUNE 6, 1911 WASHINGTON GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE EXPENDITURES IN THE STATE DEPARTMENT. [Committee room, basement, main building. Telephone 278. Meets on call.] COURTNEY WALKER HAMLIN, Chairman, Missouri. S. H. DENT, JR., Alabama. CHARLES R. DAVIS, Minnesota. WILLIAM W. WEDEMEYER, Michigan. |