Mr. SCOTT. You are stating the fact.

Senator BRISTOW. I am asking you to confirm if that statement is a fact, that Senator Root's speech was made four days after our Government had refused the demand of Great Britain?

Mr. Scorт. I understand that to be so.

Senator BRISTOw. I understood you stated that to be true, and so I was simply repeating it.

Mr. Scorr. Yes.

Senator WALSH. Then, the Senator wants to know if you immediately began circulating that speech?

Mr. SCOTT. No.

Senator WALSH. How long after that did you take any action toward circulating it?

Mr. SCOTT. Senator Root delivered his speech on the 21st day of January, 1913, and the statement here is March 15.

Senator WALSH. That was your circular?

Mr. SCOTT. Yes. I can not just state, Senator, the exact time, because I did not know that these matters were to be brought up, but I could show, if you desire, when the action was taken by the executive committee.

Senator WALSH. I think the record shows that.

Mr. SCOTT. I think it does. I think the record does show it, page 4802.

Senator BRISTOW. It shows the date which your action was taken? What date was that, please?

Mr. SCOTT. It is shown on page 4802, Exhibit No. 8. The date of February 7, 1913.

Senator BRISTOW. February 7?

Mr. SCOTT. Yes.

Senator BRISTOW. It was made in January?

Mr. SCOTT. January 21.

Senator BRISTOW. And you circulated it on February 7?

Mr. SCOTT. No, we did not circulate it, but we decided-
Senator BRISTOW. You decided to circulate it?

Mr. SCOTT. Yes.

Senator BRISTOW. So as soon as our Government had refused the contention of Great Britain, within four days Senator Root makes this speech condemning our Government most severely for its attitude, and then your society within a couple of weeks or so directed. that that speech be circulated, some 750,000 copies more or less— approximately 750,000 of them?

Mr. SCOTT. Seven hundred and fifteen thousand.

Senator BRISTOW. And that was followed by another circular which your board of directors signed, and of which 1,200,000 copies were circulated?

Mr. SCOTT. Yes; some of the trustees signed it. The names there are given.

Senator BRISTOW. A large number of them?

Mr. SCOTT. Beginning from the oldest to the youngest. That statement was printed, as you say, and, if I remember aright, about 1,200,000 copies circulated.

Senator BRISTOW. As I understand from these facts, you consider that it is a legitimate promotion of peace to take sides in a contro

versy against your own country and in favor of the contention of a foreign country without any knowledge as to whether the diplomatic officers representing the two Governments are about to approach an amicable agreement without any interference on the part of your peace society?

Mr. SCOTT. The answer to that is that I believe that it is in the interest of international peace to have international obligations construed fairly and accurately and, in my view at least, the interpretation to be placed upon the Hay-Pauncefote treaty of November 18, 1901, is the one contained in this statement.

Senator BRISTOw. You would prefer it to be construed as you thought it ought to be even if war resulted from such an agitation as you might start?

Mr. SCOTT. My dear sir, I have served in war. I am not in favor of it. Through no action of mine could war ever break out, as I believe.

Senator BRISTow. Do you think, Mr. Scott, that as a result of the agitation which this great organization of yours, with its enormous resources, has started the feeling between the English people and the American people has been aroused-that is, an unfriendly feeling, widespread, has been set in motion?

Mr. SCOTT. I would say, Mr. Senator, in reply to that, as I said a little while ago, I think you are crediting us with much more influence than we really possess. I have always been inclined to think that the attitude of the President of the United States has had something to do with the movement at the present time. I do not say that in any irresponsive sense, but I do not myself see any very direct close connection between the circulation of this statement and any steps toward its repeal or the submission of the dispute, if it be not repealed, to arbitration. That is my honest conviction. People may differ. Senator BRISTOW. As a matter of fact, does not Mr. Carnegie feel that he has won a victory in obtaining the support of the President of the United States to his contention that the English were right in this controversy and our own country was wrong?

Mr. SCOTT. In the first place, I can not say that Mr. Carnegie changed the attitude of the President, and I can not say that it is his victory. Personally, I would express my own view, and that is I am deeply grateful to the President of the United States for his attitude. I say it, sir, with the greatest of respect for the opinions of people who differ from me. I direct that remark, if I may, more particularly

to the chairman.

The CHAIRMAN. Do you keep in mind the attitude of President
Taft? Do you think he was wrong in his attitude?
Mr. ScoTT. I do.

The CHAIRMAN. You think Mr. Knox was wrong?
Mr. SCOTT. I do.

The CHAIRMAN. You think Mr. Roosevelt was wrong in approving Mr. Taft's action and the action of Congress?

Mr. SCOTT. Rather than make it a mere personal matter

The CHAIRMAN. You made it personal by directing your observation to me.

Mr. SCOTT. I wanted to have you understand, sir, that notwith standing the difference of interpretation there may be there is no lac of respect so far as that is concerned.

The CHAIRMAN. I am sure of that. I was only in self-defense invoking the position of President Taft, Mr. Roosevelt, Mr. Knox, Mr. Olney, and Mr. Lodge.

Mr. SCOTT. I would put it this way: I regret that such eminent persons should have interpreted it in such a way as seems to me inconsistent with the duty of the United States in the premises. That, I think, is as fair a statement as I can make.

The CHAIRMAN. You know that Senator Lodge participated in the negotiations in London which lead to the agreement between the two Governments regarding the second Hay-Pauncefote treaty, the treaty now in force. Do you not know that?

Mr. SCOTT. Senator Lodge?

The CHAIRMAN. Senator Lodge. That appeared in Mr. Choate's correspondence, which was published here within the last few days. Mr. SCOTT. I have not had an opportunity to read that.

The CHAIRMAN. And that is preliminary to the further observation, with which you are of course familiar, that Senator Lodge has repeatedly declared, and he declared it in his great speech of about a week ago, that our right to exempt all our American vessels whether in the overseas trade or in the local trade, was regarded by him as unaffected by any provision of the Hay-Pauncefote treaty. I presume you know that is Senator Lodge's attitude!

Mr. SCOTT. Yes; I know that is his attitude. I do not express any opinion. Very distinguished people differ. I merely state my own without criticism.

Senator BRISTOW. The detailed information that I

Senator SIMMONS. If the Senator will pardon me, I do not think it would be hardly correct to say that Senator Lodge participated in the negotiations, if that statement was based

The CHAIRMAN. He cooperated with Mr. Choate.

Senator SIMMONS (continuing). Upon the reference made to him by Mr. Choate in the letters which have been read into the record. The CHAIRMAN. It would be more accurate, allow me to say, that he cooperated with Mr. Choate.

Senator SIMMONS. He conferred with Mr. Choate, but he did not. participate in any way, as I understand it, in the negotiations between this Government and the British Government.

The CHAIRMAN. That statement of Senator Simmons is quite

correct.

Mr. SCOTT. If you will allow me, I might file a caveat, because I have not had an opportunity-indeed, I have not read these, and I do not know the contents of the documents which Mr. Choate has submitted. I should like very much to have a copy.

Senator WALSH. Mr. Scott, I want to invite your attention to an extract of proceedings from your board of trustees, appearing on page 4801 and 4802 of the earlier record, from which it appears that your board took action about this matter on December 12, 1902, at which time they passed the following resolution:

Resolved, That a committee of five, of which the president of the board shall be chairman, be appointed by the chair to prepare a brief statement concerning the present discussion between the parties to the Hay-Pauncefote treaty, to be signed individually by the members of the board and published.

Now if that was

The CHAIRMAN. Was that 1902?

Senator WALSH. 1912. Appearing on pages 4801 and 4802. That, of course, refers to the circular which was afterwards prepared and signed by the members. So that as early as December 12, 1912, when this matter was still in negotiation between the two Governments, your board directed the preparation of a circular which was afterwards sent out?

Mr. SCOTT. Yes; appointed a committee to draft it. I did not have the honor to be a member of that.

Senator WALSH. Apparently, then, your board, while this matter was in fieri, if I may so speak, still a matter of diplomatic negotiations between the two Governments, got into the controversy and directed the preparation of a pamphlet advocating the view of the treaty then being urged by the English Government?

Mr. SCOTT. As I recall the circumstances, Mr. Senator; a committee was appointed to see what form of a draft should be prepared, if any. It was, as you say, prepared in pursuance of that resolution, and on February 7, 1913, action was taken, and it was issued, as also appears from the sequence, on the 13th of March.

Senator WALSH. But the resolution apparently contemplates the preparation of just such an instrument as was eventually issued, signed by certain members of the committee?

Mr. Scorr. Yes, sir.

Senator WALSH. Of course, your board at that time had some definite idea as to what that paper was to be, and you have not any idea now, have you, that it was to be a document prepared, indorsing and buttressing our Government in the interpretation they put upon that treaty?

Mr. SCOTT. No, sir.

Senator BRISTOW. What date was the last English protest or communication?

The CHAIRMAN. The one signed by Earl Grey.
Mr. SCOTT. February 27, was the last-1913.
Senator BRISTOW. When was the second one?

Mr. SCOTT. November 14, 1913.

The CHAIRMAN. The first was on July 8, by Mr. Innes?

Mr. SCOTT. Yes; by Mr. Innes, and second on November 14. Senator BRISTOW. And then your committee took it up on December 12 following?

Mr. SCOTT. Yes, sir.

Senator BRISTOW. What other expenditures have you made in this propaganda other than for the circulation of this letter that has been referred to?

Mr. SCOTT. I am very glad you asked me that question, because I want to give you a reply that will please you. None.

The CHAIRMAN. I do not know that you please the Senator at all. Mr. SCOTT. I recognize the difference of opinion. I am sorry to appear in opposition to the view of any Member of Congress.

The CHAIRMAN. Have you anything else, Senator Bristow ? Senator BRISTOw. I have finished. I am very anxious that this detailed data that I have asked for should be furnished.

The CHAIRMAN. Does the foundation expend each year the entire income of half a million dollars?

Mr. SCOTT. Not quite. There is quite a surplus.

The CHAIRMAN. About how much did the foundation expend last year?

Mr. SCOTT. I submitted all those statements, Mr. Chairman, but I do not carry them around with me. It was considerably less than $500,000.

The CHAIRMAN. By considerably less, how much do you mean? Mr. SCOTT. I should think, subject to correction, that probably the amount circulated or used last year was about $450,000. I can give you the exact figures later.

The CHAIRMAN. Do the records in your office show how that amount was expended in detail?

Mr. SCOTT. Yes.

The CHAIRMAN. Including the names of persons who received amounts, large and small?

Mr. SCOTT. Generally. In the examination which you will find here [indicating], Mr. Chairman, Senator Walsh took up the last annual statement, which contains every item

The CHAIRMAN. Does that statement give the name of every person who received any part of the money expended during the year in question out of this $500,000?

Mr. SCOTT. It did in general, and where it did not give the specific name Senator Walsh asked for a report, for an indication, and it was supplied in most instances, and where it was not supplied I made a note of it and sent the committee the document giving all the information.

The CHAIRMAN. Do you say that included in the hearings before the so-called lobby committee, as published, we will find the name of every individual who received any part of the $500,000 in any one year?

Mr. SCOTT. No; not every name. That is a long transaction. The CHAIRMAN. You can prepare that, can you?

Senator WALSH. Senator O'Gorman, let me remark that the testimony discloses that these funds were distributed around among these various organizations. For instance, $31,000 went to the American Peace Society. That American Peace Society, the testimony discloses, made a report to the Carnegie Endowment Fund, showing what disposition they had made of that.

The CHAIRMAN. In detail?

Senator WALSH. They were requested to furnish that. In the documents submitted in answer to that request I do not find any reference to the names of parties who got any portion of that. The American Peace Society gives a report appearing at page 4805, from which it appears that it distributed $15,000 of that among subordinate peace societies, and that $11,000

The CHAIRMAN. Is there any report from the subordinate peace societies?

Senator WALSH. There are reports from separate peace societies. The amounts expended by them cover salaries, office rent, and so forth.

The CHAIRMAN. Are the names mentioned there of the persons who receive the salaries?

Senator WALSH. No names are mentioned at all.

The CHAIRMAN. Can you prepare a statement, Mr. Scott, furnishing the information I suggested a moment ago, showing in detail who