a territorial union so far as Great Britain was concerned; the events leading up to the American Revolution; taxation without representation, and so forth; all those stated in as clear a way as I possibly could, in order to show the young boy or the young girl how his country grew. I assure you, sir, when I came to treat of the Revolutionary War, with my feeling, I am quite sure that I would describe in general the campaigns, the campaign around Boston, the campaign through New Jersey, and so on, but I would not go into details as to the number of men engaged in action, the losses in action, and so forth.

When I was a youngster in school, in the public schools of Philadelphia-those were the only schools I ever attended until I went to college I remember we used to have a history bee, and one question. that made a very deep impression on my mind was how many men Cornwallis lost in killed and wounded at the Battle of Princetonif Cornwallis was at the Battle of Princeton-I leave that to you, and also as to the number of men engaged, because I have never taken any direct interest in that. I merely know it passed around the class and nobody answered it. That sort of thing seems to me to be detail. It takes the mind off the really important elements that have entered a country's history and have determined its character and its greatI would dwell at very great length, that is, at considerable length, upon the form of government which is organized, the consequences of the Revolution, the origin of the Constitution, and so on, and I merely mention those things to show that I think the student, the young boy or girl, should not have his or her mind burdened with mere incidents, mere details of that kind, not merely because they were wars, but because they are incidents which have merged into larger questions and larger issues.

ness.

The CHAIRMAN. Would you not think it a part of your duty, in writing history to be read by young people, to attempt to excite their patriotic ardor and glory in the achievements of their country?

Mr. SCOTT. I will answer that question very briefly by saying that I have always myself been very deeply interested in military history. I would not, if I had the power, take down a single monument or statue erected to the man who did his duty in war. I rather think I would broaden, if I had it within my power, the standard of achievement so that the statues might be raised to other people as well, but from my lips, sir, no condemnation has ever fallen on the man who did his duty to his country in battle, and I do not believe I can ever live to such an age or that I can be subject to any influence which would cause me to feel a lack of respect and reverance for them.

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Scott, I have been very much impressed with your views and would like to know whether you believe a man can bear a divided allegiance. Can he be absolutely loyal to two countries at one time?

Mr. SCOTT. What would you mean by that?

The CHAIRMAN. Do you not understand the question?

Mr. SCOTT. I want you to express your question so that it will appear clear on the record.

The CHAIRMAN. I think I have made it clear. The question is, can a citizen of the United States have a divided allegiance? In other words, can he be as devoted to another country as to his own?

Mr. SCOTT. A citizen of the United States be devoted as much to a foreign country as to his own?

The CHAIRMAN. Yes.

Mr. SCOTT. Why, sir, I can only answer you that by my personal feeling. I answer it without the slightest hesitation. I can conceive of no citizenship under which a man would be more devoted to a foreign country than to his own.

Senator SIMMONS. Unless he is a traitor?

Mr. SCOTT. The question seems to me to be-
The CHAIRMAN. You answer is "no"?

Mr. SCOTT. Absolutely and eternally, no.

The CHAIRMAN. I think I asked you whether, so far as you are aware, the Carnegie Foundation or any of the peace societies have at any time attempted to accelerate a sentiment in this country unfavorable to large appropriations to the Army and Navy. Did I underyou to say that?

stand

Mr. SCOTT. No; you asked some time ago if the Carnegie Endowment had taken any action on that.

The CHAIRMAN. Now, I embrace all the other societies in that. All the peace societies.

Mr. SCOTT. I am at just a little loss to answer that question accurately. I know a great many peace people have met and resolved that we should have one battleship, or not more than one, or not more than three, or something like that.

Senator SIMMONS. Do you not know that a great many people, not members of peace societies or associations of any kind, have taken the same view?

Mr. SCOTT. I think that view is taken, Mr. Chairman, if taken by people, is taken not merely because they belong to peace societies, but because they are that kind of people.

Senator SIMMONS. Of course you understand if that view should be shared by individuals here and there they could never hope to exert the influence that might be worked by a very powerful propaganda supported by association?

Mr. SCOTT. They never can, Mr. Chairman.

The CHAIRMAN. They never can?

Mr. SCOTT. You are asking me very personal questions. I shall be very glad to reply to that one to you. I should regret to see an enlargement of our Army or Navy, not because I am opposed to the Army to be enlarged, or the Navy to be enlarged to meet every needI myself am not a judge of the need-but we are living in conditions as they are, not as we might like them to be, and I am no opponent of an efficient Army or an efficient Navy, the efficiency of the Army or Navy to be determined by those who have made a study of those questions and who understand the uses to which armies and navies must naturally be put.

The CHAIRMAN. Have you ever heard of any effort made by any of the peace societies, or other organizations in affiliation with them, to circularize the country or to circularize the Congress with a view to inducing the Congress to make small appropriations for the Army and Navy, having the idea-and they are very earnest about it, I have no doubt that by the reduction of the armament of the world we will be nearer to the millenium; soldiers will be no more and legislators will be in their graves?

Mr. SCOTT. No, I do not know, Mr. Chairman. I have reenforced my memory by asking my assistant here.

The CHAIRMAN. Are you clear that you never heard of such an effort?

Mr. SCOTT. I have heard of people-I think at times peace people have come down to Congress, perhaps, and been heard before committees and certain statements have been issued advocating reduction in the Navy, although I can not just at this time recall specific action, say, on the part of the American Peace Society, within the time or since this endowment has come into existence.

The CHAIRMAN. You say this endowment came into existence when?

Mr. SCOTT. December 14, 1910.

The CHAIRMAN. That was three years last December?

Mr. SCOTT. That was three years last December. I make that statement subject to the fact that I do not know.

The CHAIRMAN. You do not know what?

Mr. SCOTT. I do not know of any instance. If you asked me a direct specific question whether the American Feace Society has from a certain time issued such literature I can obtain a statement as to that.

The CHAIRMAN. With respect to the foundation, which you say was created three years ago last December, was there not some other society identified with Mr. Carnegie in some way doing the same work of trying to promote international peace for some years before that under some other name perhaps?

Mr. SCOTT. No; what you probably have in mind is the New York Peace Society, which was formed a number of years ago, and of which Mr. Carnegie was the president, I think, at the time it was formed, and I think he is still president of that society.

The CHAIRMAN. Was that organized under the laws of the State of New York?

Mr. SCOTT. I can not answer as to that.

The CHAIRMAN. Where does the foundation get a charter, if it has one?

Mr. SCOTT. It has no charter.

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Carnegie's activities then, in promoting international peace previous to December, three years ago, were confined largely to this New York society that you speak of?

Mr. SCOTT. They were confined largely, Mr. Chairman, to advancing, from time to time, what would be called small sums of money to peace societies, and in some cases, perhaps, to individuals. Take the case of the New York Peace Society, I mentioned that. Mr. Carnegie was, I think, in the habit of giving to that society the sum of $6,000 each year. He had been giving it that sum for a year or two, I think, before this endowment was started; but I think there was a general agreement to the effect that Mr. Carnegie would duplicate, dollar for dollar, the amount of money that those people might contribute.

The CHAIRMAN. What are the affiliations of the endowment with peace societies in Canada?

Mr. SCOTT. None.

The CHAIRMAN. Are there no peace societies in Canada?

Mr. SCOTT. None with which we are affiliated.

The CHAIRMAN. Are there peace societies in Canada engaged in this same work of promoting peace, arbitration, and international good will?

Mr. SCOTT. There are or may be. I think, quite recently there has been established in Canada an international conciliation society, but heretofore

The CHAIRMAN. Is that international conciliation society affiliated with your society here?

Mr. SCOTT. I think not, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. Is it affiliated with some of the subordinate societies in this country?

Mr. SCOTT. I think not. I think it is affiliated in just the same way that the International Conciliation Society of New York is affiliated with the parent branch.

Senator SIMMONS. I hate to leave you, but I live in the country, unfortunately. I should have liked to ask Mr. Scott some questions. The CHAIRMAN. I am about through with Mr. Scott now, I think; expecting that you will send that information as soon as you can. About when will you send it?

Mr. SCOTT. Just as soon as we can get it.

The CHAIRMAN. Will that be by Wednesday of next week?

Mr. SCOTT. In order to help us, will you not have the clerk send a list of these things?

The CHAIRMAN. The clerk will make a note of those things Mr. Scott is to furnish us and have it sent to him.

Senator SIMMONS. I wanted to ask you a number of questions I had made a note of, but it is necessary for me to go home soon, therefore I will ask you only one or two.

Mr. SCOTT. I wish you could ask me such as you wish.

Senator SIMMONS. I believe you said, Mr. Scott, that Mr. Carnegie had made very large contributions to education in this country? Mr. SCOTT. Yes, sir.

Senator SIMMONS. There is to-day a very deep-seated and profound interest in the cause of education everywhere in the country, is there not?

Mr. SCOTT. Yes, sir.

Senator SIMMONS. Vast sums of money have been spent; thousands of people are devoting their lives to that cause. Now, I wish to ask you if that is a result of Mr. Carnegie's contributions to education or is it a result of the general public sentiment among the people of this country in favor of uplift?

Mr. SCOTT. That is to say, that the great extension of the movement could be attributed, in my opinion, directly to Mr. Carnegie?

Senator SIMMONS. I was asking you whether these contributions of Mr. Carnegie had resulted in this movement, or is the educational movement the result of public sentiment in favor of education?

Mr. Scorт. I should think, while Mr. Carnegie's contributions to education have been very considerable indeed, I think the whole movement is largely the result of a general desire for education.

Senator SIMMONS. I understood you to say that there were a great many societies, associations, and organizations working in the interest of international peace. There are thousands, and perhaps millions, of individuals who do not belong to any society or organization who

are likewise profoundly interested in the question of international peace, are there not?

Mr. Scort. Yes, sir.

Senator SIMMONS. Mr. Carnegie has contributed, you say, some money to establish an association for the purpose of furthering the cause of international peace?

Mr. Scort. Yes, sir.

Senator SIMMONS. I wish to ask you if this widespread movement in the United States, resulting in the organization of these societies and the activities of these individuals, if that is the result of Mr. Carnegie's contributions, or is it the result of the general public sentiment in this country in favor of peace?

Mr. SCOTT. On that question I can give a very decided opinion. I am not so well up in the matter of the educational feature; therefore I hesitated somewhat. I should say in regard to that question, no. I think the sentiment in favor of international peace in this country is a very wide one, a very strong one; that it has been growing constantly; and I think it has been very little influenced by any contributions from any person.

Senator SIMMONS. You move very extensively among people who believe in international peace?

Mr. SCOTT. Well, I am afraid I do not; not very much among people who have been called pacifists-people who have their specific remedies.

Senator SIMMONS. Have you discovered among the people who share your views in this country in reference to international peace any lack of patriotic sentiment?

Mr. SCOTT. No. The best friends I have, the people with whom I get on the best, are the Army and Navy officers.

Senator SIMMONS. Have you seen the slightest evidence in connection with any of the organizations that have been formed for the purpose of promoting peace any spirit or sentiment of treason to the country.

Mr. SCOTT. Oh, no. You are putting that, Mr. Senator, if you will permit me to say so, very broadly. There is a difference of opinion among people at a particular time as to whether force should be used or should not be used.

Senator SIMMONS. You do not consider they are doing anything that is reprehensible?

Mr. SCOTT. No, sir.

Senator SIMMONS. You do not consider thay are fomenting any spirit that is not entirely consistent with the highest patriotism?

Mr. SCOTT. No; I should say not. I was just going back a moment to say-Senator O'Gorman looked at me rather queerly.

Senator O'GORMAN. Not queerly, sympathetically.

Mr. SCOTT. I spoke of the Army and Navy people, because we seem to understand each other. Personally, I do not look upon anything happening very rapidly-circumstances of this world, the conditions of this world, as I see it, should be given a chance to adjust themselves. There is not very much change in the condition of affairs. I should like to say to Senator O'Gorman, if I be not considered too familiar, that the man, in my opinion, who has done more for the cause of international peace, not merely in the United States, but in the world; not merely in this country, but I believe in all other