Mr. SCOTT. No, sir. Senator WALSH. They did as a body authorize the expenditure of some $25,000, did they not? Mr. SCOTT. Not quite that amount--$23,000. Senator WALSH. They authorized the expenditure of $25,000 and actually spent $23,000? Mr. Scort. Yes. Senator WALSH. To that extent they have interested themselves as a body separate and apart from any interest exhibited by any individual member of the association? Mr. SCOTT. That statement is correct. What I thought you had in mind, Senator Borah, was whether or not the trustees as a body as distinct from individuals had issued the statement. The one on page 4798 is a statement of a certain number of trustees, but not all of them. Senator WALSH. But notwithstanding that it is a statement from a number of the trustees, the endowment circulated---- Mr. SCOTT. You are quite right. Senator WALSH (continuing). The document, and paid for the circulation of it? Mr. SCOTT. Yes. In all, the sum of $23,000 and some fraction was spent. The CHAIRMAN. Has the endowment ever before taken an interest in the matter that was engaging the attention of Congress? Mr. SCOTT. Would you particularize? The CHAIRMAN. I say, was this the first time that the endowment took an active interest respecting a matter that was engaging the attention of Congress for the purpose of influencing congressional or governmental action? Mr. SCOTT. That is rather easy to answer, and yet rather difficult to answer. One answer would be no and the other answer would be yes. Therefore, let me explain each. In 1911, when the arbitration treaties were before the Senate, Mr. Carnegie advanced a sum of Mr. SCOTT. $50,000, which was later reimbursed by the Carnegie Endowment. To that extent, therefore- The CHAIRMAN. Was the $50,000 expended to promote the views of this peace movement regarding the virtues or the demerits of the treaties that were then pending? Mr. SCOTT. $45,000, I understand, was spent. The CHAIRMAN. How was that expended? Mr. SCOTT. That I can not tell you. The CHAIRMAN. Have you no idea? Mr. SCOTT. I say, I can not tell you now because I do not have the documents. The CHAIRMAN. We are not asking for specific facts. Mr. SCOTT. It was not done here, and it was not done through the endowment as such. It was done largely through a citizen committee of New York, and various societies that furnished sums of moneysmall sums of money-sometimes larger-and public meetings were held throughout a large number of cities of the United States. The official action which the endowment had in connection with it was the passage of a resolution directing the reimbursement of the sum which had been advanced for that purpose, with, however, a distinct proviso that no portion of that sum should be expended for advocating any controversial question, but merely the cause of international arbitration in general. The CHAIRMAN. You do not think that was a controversial question in 1911, as to the kind of a treaty we ought to make with Great Britain? Mr. SCOTT. You want my answer? The CHAIRMAN. Yes. Mr. SCOTT. I most decidedly think it was. The CHAIRMAN. A controversial question? Mr. SCOTT. Undoubtedly I do. The CHAIRMAN. Then, was the money properly employed? Mr. SCOTT. Ah, that is what I am trying to explain to you, that the executive committee when directing the return made the return of that money depend upon the fact that no part of it had been expended in a controversial matter as such, but simply for the advancement of general arbitration as distinct from a particular form or forms of treaties. That is the point I wanted to call your attention to. The CHAIRMAN. But the money was expended-the $45,000? The CHAIRMAN. For public meetings-the employment of speakers! The CHAIRMAN. You know lecturers were employed at that time to go around the country? Mr. SCOTT. Yes. The CHAIRMAN. Preaching the doctrine of arbitration? The CHAIRMAN. Who paid those men? Mr. Scorr. Ultimately you would say the endowment paid them, because it was reimbursed the sum which had been advanced. The CHAIRMAN. Of course, the endowment took part in that particular matter, believing that it was in that way promoting universal peace or arbitration? Mr. SCOTT. I should like to restate again what I have said The CHAIRMAN. No; you do not have to restate it, but the general purpose. Mr. SCOTT. The general purpose of arbitration. The CHAIRMAN. To promote that was the purpose? Mr. SCOTT. Yes. The CHAIRMAN. Those who were interested in that peace movement doubtless think that universal peace might prevail if all the nations disarmed and abolished or reduced their naval force and armed strength? Mr. SCOTT. You are asking me, sir, to express an opinion of many peace persons? The CHAIRMAN Yes. Mr. SCOTT. I am not authorized to speak for them. The CHAIRMAN. What is your general view? That is all I am asking for. Mr. SCOTT. I believe that the only way that international peace will ever come in this world will be by the slow process of lawdue process of law; a long, slow development, just the same as has taken place within nations. And I can not attempt to fix any time. Does that answer your question ? The CHAIRMAN. Has the Carnegie Foundation at any time attempted to exert an influence respecting the expenditures made by Congress for the support of the Navy or the Army? Mr. SCOTT. No, sir. Senator BRISTOW. You circulated, as I understand, seven hundred and some thousand copies of Senator Root's speech? Mr. SCOTT. Yes. Mr. Scort. Yes. That was paid for by the endowment? Senator BRISTOw. That is, you took the side on this controversy— your directors did-and became a partisan of the proposition to repeal the exemption clause in the Panama tolls act? Mr. SCOTT. That depends on what you mean by the settlement of this dispute. The speech of Senator Root was circulated as a congressional document, and the correct answer to the question you put to me will have to depend on the contents of Senator Root's speech. I have not read it for sometime, but if I recall it, Senator Root's views, or the views expressed in his speech, were that the act exempting American vessels in the coastwise trade from the payment of tolls was a violation of the Hay-Pauncefote treaty, and that in view of that fact either the matter should be raised diplomatically, or there should a repeal of the exemption in question, or an arbitration of the dispute. That is, as I recollect at this time, the view advanced in Senator Root's speech. be The CHAIRMAN. That, I think, accords with the recollection of those who had the pleasure of listening to him. That is about his position. Mr. SCOTT. I think so. As I said before, I did not know when I came to-day what you were going to ask me, and I have not had any opportunity to making a preparation or bringing documents which I otherwise would. Senator BRISTOW. Did your board of directors confer with the Secretary of State as to whether or not there was probable a serious controversy between Great Britain and our country in regard to the law before this action was taken in circulating this speech on the English side of the controversy? Mr. SCOTT. I must make a correction. That is not the English side of the question. Senator BRISTOW. I state that that it is, and you can take that as my opinion, and not as yours. Mr. SCOTT. Then I can not answer your question, because I will not admit for a moment that we advocate the English side of the question. I can not do that. I shall show that this speech advocating what I believe is the American side of the question-namely, the correct interpretation of the treaty, and the obligations and the duties of the United States arising out of that treaty-that this speech was circulated without-and understand in that sense, and sense only, I reply to your question-that speech was circulated without any reference direct or indirect on the part of the Carnegie Endowment with any Government officials as far as I know, and I believe if there had been any I would have known it. Senator BRISTOw. If there is a controversy in regard to the interpretation of that treaty it is between the Government of Great Britain and the Government of the United States, is it not? Mr. SCOTT. Our dispute, sir-our concern is not about Great Britain. Our concern is as to the United States. Senator BRISTOW. The question is-that is not my question- Senator BRISTOw. If there is an international dispute, upon that question, it is between the Government of Great Britain and the Government of the United States, is it not? Mr. SCOTT. I believe the Senator is correctly informed. Senator BRISTOw. If there is a dispute it is between them? Senator BRISTOW. Now, there is such a dispute, so we understand, and since your purpose is to aid in the adjustment of international disputes without war, do you not have to deal with the governments in the settling of those disputes? Mr. SCOTT. We do not settle disputes, sir. Senator BRISTOW. You do not attempt to settle them? Mr. SCOTT. No; hence my correction. When you use the expression "diplomatic function," we have no diplomatic function. We are composed of 27 or 28 American citizens, and we would like to see our country take that course in foreign relations which seems to us to be based on dictates of justice. Now, we may be wrong. wrong. There is a difference of opinion. Personally and I speak merely for myself-I believe that the legislation in question is inconsistent with the terms of the treaty, and believing as I do I would be very happy indeed to see the provision of the act repealed or submitted to international arbitration. I am looking at the conduct of my own countrymen, not what Great Britain may do. To me that is immaterial. Senator BRISTOw. Then you do take part in controversial questions-political questions in the United States? Mr. SCOTT. When this circular was issued the matter had been passed by Congress and was not up for rehearing, and we expressed our opinions as individuals --I believe a right which is inherent in American citizenship; I beg to refer you to the first amendment to the Constitution -- and as an American citizen I believe I have the right to express an opinion as to the conduct of the United States, whether that be from the platform or whether that be through a printed circular or statement. Now, I may be wrong, but that is my view. Senator BRISTOW. So that this organization used this literature on the English side of this controversy Mr. SCOTT. No, sir; I will not answer any question of that kind. The view that I advocate is not the English view. It is the view that I believe is the American view, in the light of the origin and development of that treaty. I will not be a party to being I will not sit here, sir, and be told that I am advocating the view of England. Senator WALSH. Senator Bristow has already said that when he speaks of it as the English view you are to understand that he does not speak your view, but his own. Senator BRISTOW. I see that Mr. Scott is very sensitive in regard to the English view. If there is a controversy between the Govern ment of Great Britain and the Government of the United States in regard to the interpretation of the treaty and there was, it seems to me, when the Congress of the United States passed a law and the President of the United States approved that law which the English Government, through its representatives, said violated the treaty and which the American Government said did not, and you take the side and the view of the English Government, are you not on the side of the English interpretation? Mr. SCOTT. From your standpoint-I will not attempt to illustrate your standpoint. I simply repeat again my view of that matter is that the corect interpretation of the treaty is that it is inconsistent with an international obligation to which the United States was a party. I do not want to split words, but I want merely to respond to the statement and say that I am not consciously advocating an English interpretation, but I am merely advocating an interpretation of that which I believe is correct, and which I would have advocated as far as my feeble strength would have permitted, whether Great Britain made the slightest protest or not. That is the point I want to make clear. Senator BRISTOw. But, regardless of your purposes or motives, the fact is that you are advocating the same interpretation that England advocates, are you not? Mr. SCOTT. The fact is, that we are advocating an interpretationI will not say "we;" I will say "I." I prefer to speak for myself, because I have a right to speak for myself, and if you desire the views of other people you have the right to invite them-I am advocating what I believe to be a correct interpretation of that treaty. Whether it is the same as the views put forward on the other side or not is a matter to me of entire indifference. Senator BRISTOW. The fact is, however, is it not, Mr. Scott, that the American Government, through its executive and legislative branches, interpreted the treaty differently from the interpretation placed upon it by Great Britain and your association, or you? Mr. SCOTT. The fact is, that the two interpretations are inconsistent. Hence, there is a conflict. That I freely admit, and I also freely admit the right as an American citizen to express my views on that point. Senator BRISTOw. I am not denying that you have a right to express your views on anything. There is no question about that between you and me. I could not undertake to deny you your rights as an American at all. That question is not involved here. What I have been trying to get at, and I may not be approaching it very intelligently, but I understand your society to be a peace society, to aid in the dissemination of Mr. SCOTT. Yes; you are correct. Mr. BRISTOW (Continuing). Of peaceful ideas, to prevent war? Senator BRISTOW. To eliminate war? Mr. Scorт. Yes, sir; as far as possible. Senator BRISTOW. Therefore, when two nations agree, you have no business there, because there are no differences? Mr. SCOTT. Complete your sentence. The CHAIRMAN. An interrogation point, I presume, is at that point. |