Mr. O'NEAL. $6,200 is satisfactory to you? Mr. CAEMMERER. Well, we could use the $6,360, if it is agreeable to the committee.

DISTRIBUTION OF ESTIMATE

Mr. O'NEAL. Is this $9,700 that you are asking for entirely consumed, or, at least, principally consumed, by salaries?

Mr. CAEMMERER. Yes, sir; $6,200 is for personal services.

Mr. O'NEAL. How is that divided between salaries and expenses? Have you a break-down as between salaries and expenses?

Mr. CAEMMERER. Yes, sir; $550 for supplies and material; $200 for communication service-that is, telegraph and telephone; $2,400 on travel; $350 on photographing, photographs, and prints; and $300 for miscellaneous expenses of printing and binding; making $3,800, plus $6,360, making $10,160. It would be just $160 less if we are not allowed that increase.

Mr. O'NEAL. $2,400; that, you say, is for travel?

Mr. CAEMMERER. Yes, sir.

Mr. O'NEAL. Is that for meetings of members of the Commission? Mr. CAEMMERER. For meetings, and then we have certain small items that really should be considered travel. We do not have a contingent fund, so that in the case of moving models, and shipments, and the like, we have included that under "Travel."

DUTIES AND WORK OF THE COMMISSION IN ADVISING ON CONSTRUCTION OF BUILDINGS AND MEMORIALS

Mr. O'NEAL. You said by the Shipstead-Luce Act you are empowered to advise as to the construction of buildings in the District of Columbia?

Mr. CAEMMERER. Yes, sir.

Mr. O'NEAL. Prior to that time, what were the duties of your Commission?

Mr. CAEMMERER. The Commission has always advised, since its creation in 1910, on works of art in which the Government is concerned, involving buildings-that is, architecture, and sculpture, monuments, and memorials also paintings, and landscape architecture, not only here but in other parts of the country; 10 years ago it involved memorials in France in the battlefields.

Mr. O'NEAL. Work has greatly decreased, has it not, Mr. Caemmerer, recently? That is, within the last year?

Mr. CAEMMERER. No, sir; not at all. In fact, now that we are to have a National Gallery of Art it will increase. The House unanimously passed the bill yesterday; also the Senate passed the bill yesterday.

Mr. O'NEAL. Last year in the hearings there was a whole page of buildings and memorials which you had under construction. Are most of those still under construction?

Mr. CAEMMERER. Of course, some of these projects run for several years. We have, for instance, the Artemas Ward statue to commemorate a general of the Revolutionary War. It is a gift from Harvard University. The sculptor was selected by competition several years ago-all of 7 years ago. He made a small model, and that had to be approved. Then he made larger scale models, sometimes one-half

the size and sometimes one-third the size, and finally he made the full-size model, and from that he makes the bronze casting; he is about ready to do that now. Then, there is also the question of the pedestal for the memorial, and the question of its location. For that the Commission has selected a site at Massachusetts and Nebraska Avenues.

Mr. O'NEAL. Do you have just as much work now as you had in the past; is it increasing or decreasing?

Mr. CAEMMERER. It is really increasing. Through the Public Works Program of President Roosevelt and his interest in the fine arts there has been created a great stimulus in support of the artists. Also, here in Washington, during the past 10 years we have carried through a great buildings' program. It was thought when those buildings were completed that it would provide adequate improvements for the departments of the Government, but in the last 2 or 3 years the needs for new buildings have increased, so that there is now every probability that a building program will be fast under way as large as the one that was carried out during the past 10 years. Then, too, here in Washington, we are concerned with the National Capital, with parks, monuments, and buildings. We have a plan that is being carried out, and, of course, the whole aim is to make Washington a beautiful capital city of a great country.

THOMAS JEFFERSON MEMORIAL

Mr. SCRUGHAM. Mr. Caemmerer, has your Commission passed on the proposed Thomas Jefferson Memorial proposed to be placed down by the Tidal Basin?

Mr. CAEMMERER. Congressman Boylan is submitting a plan on Saturday of this week. He is chairman of the Thomas Jefferson Memorial Commission.

Mr. LAMBERTSON. Has not some work been started on it?

Mr. CAEMMERER. A site has been selected that is agreeable to our Commission. It is a location south of the Washington Monument and fits into the plan of the city very nicely. Also borings have been made by the National Park Service, and they have struck rock. So, the project is getting under way.

Mr. RICH. I hope this memorial will be the finest one in town, but I am going to ask you with reference to the Jefferson Memorial in St. Louis. Do you have charge of the Jefferson Memorial to be built in St. Louis?

Mr. CAEMMERER. No, sir; we have had nothing to do with it, excepting in a preliminary way. It has been suggested that when the time comes our Commission could be authorized to advise as to the project.

Mr. RICH. It is in here under "Statues, monuments, and memorials." That would come under your jurisdiction.

Mr. CAEMMERER. It has come to the attention of our Commission, in a preliminary way, but not in detail.

Mr. RICH. Have you been requested to do anything with reference to that memorial in St. Louis?

Mr. CAEMMERER. Nothing in detail; no, sir.

Mr. RICH. Would you have charge of that?

Mr. CAEMMERER. That has been entrusted to my office. When Mr. Boylan's commission held its meeting on the Jefferson Memorial in

Washington, my office was selected the agency to carry out its design here in Washington, and I was selected the executive officer of that commission here in Washington.

In St. Louis the proposition is one which has been approved, and you have an Art Commission authorized by act of Congress to formulate plans for that; that is, you have an Executive order which will set aside $9,000,000 as a preliminary for the St. Louis work, of which $6,750,000 is being paid out of Federal funds, and $2,250,000 out of city of St. Louis funds. They match $1 of St. Louis funds. with $3 of Federal funds.

The plan there is to raze some 35 or 37 city blocks to build up eventually a memorial. When the time comes, Mr. Rich, it is our intention to avail ourselves of the best advice we can get along artistic lines as a Fine Arts Commission.

Mr. RICH. The point I am trying to get at is why you are planning to build a memorial to Thomas Jefferson costing $30,000,000 in St. Louis, why you are going out to St. Louis to ultimately spend $30,000,000 to build a memorial.

Mr. CAEMMERER. That is just about what it will cost. The memorial in Washington has been authorized at $3,000,000.

Mr. RICH. I wonder why you are going to spend $3,000,000 in the city of Washington when you are willing to go out and spend $30,000,000 in St. Louis, where you already have a monument to Thomas Jefferson.

Mr. CAEMMERER. Because those were the instructions of Congress.

MEMORIAL COINS

Mr. O'NEIL. You advise as to coins, too, do you not?

Mr. CAEMMERER. Yes, sir; we advise as to coins. We had fully 16 sets of designs for memorial coins during the past year. That is more than we have ever had before.

Mr. FITZPATRICK. Are the recommendations by your Commission always accepted?

Mr. CAEMMERER. I would say that they are accepted 98 percent of the time. Our Commission has never asked for the veto power, but the purpose has been to give the clients, so to speak, the best advice possible concerning works of art. Sometimes the head of a department or an executive officer, for some unusual reason, finds it impossible to follow the advice of the Commissioner of Fine Arts, but it is the rarest exception.

Mr. FITZPATRICK. But it does happen at times?

Mr. CAEMMERER. Once in a great while, yes, sir, it does happen. Mr. RICH. I note in the justification a statement made of the number of memorial coins that you have advised on, 16.

Mr. CAEMMERER. Yes, sir.

Mr. RICH. Do you know what it costs to have those drafted and designed?

Mr. CAEMMERER. Well, it really does not cost the Government anything. Congress gives its authority to have memorial coins struck by the mint, and it is the Director of the Mint who submits the designs, which come usually from an association. It may be a State association or other organization that is interested in having authority from Congress for a memorial coin; it may be that some city wishes to

commemorate its founding, its centennial, two-hundred-fiftieth, or three-hundredth anniversary. They select their own artist, and he is required to make a design and to make a model of the coin, both obverse and reverse, that meets the technical requirements of the mint, the requirements for striking the coin, but our Commission passes on the artistic merits of the design.

Mr. RICH. You just simply pass on the design of the coin?
Mr. CAEMMERER. Yes, sir.

Mr. RICH. That is your function?

Mr. CAEMMERER. Yes, sir; and they must always add about $250 for the expense of making the master die.

Mr. RICH. It only costs $250?

Mr. CAEMMERER. $250 to $300, something like that.

Mr. RICH. I was informed it was $1,500.

Mr. CAEMMERER. That is for the fee of the artist, although it is left with the association to decide the amount they will pay an artist. Our Commission says, usually, when the inquiry comes, that he is entitled to $1,000. It requires a very high degree of technical skill, and it is really worth $1,000 to do that. The art of the medallist is miniature sculpture.

Mr. RICH. You say there were 16 designs approved in the last year. Is that the ordinary number that you put through annually?

Mr. CAEMMERER. No, sir, it has been four or five times more this past year than in previous years.

Mr. RICH. You mean 16 was four or five times more than the ordinary number that you passed on during previous years?

Mr. CAEMMERER. Yes, sir.

Mr. RICH. I understand there are some bills pending in Congress right now asking for new coins to be designed.

Mr. CAEMMERER. I believe so, sir.

Mr. FITZPATRICK. It does not cost the Government anything.
Mr. CAEMMERER. No, sir, not one cent.

Mr. RICH. I am under the impression that this is another one of these cases where it does not cost the Government anything, but when you find out, and ferret it down, you will find it does cost the Government a lot of money.

Mr. FITZPATRICK. I understand it does not cost the Government anything.

Mr. CAEMMERER. No, sir, not the designs and models. What it costs the mint, that is another question.

Mr. RICH. They get those coins and they sell them for $2.50 or $3 apiece.

Mr. FITZPATRICK. That has nothing to do with the mint. If they pay the mint 50 cents for a coin, it is worth its face value, and the Government does not lose anything on that.

APPROVAL OF LANDSCAPING PLANS OF CAPITAL PARKS

Mr. RICH. I notice in the first paragraph on page 5, that 60 landscape plans for small parks in the National Capital were approved by the Commission. We will take, for instance, the park in front of the White House. During the last year there was somebody working there most of the time. They tore it up, fixed it again, and then tore it up again. That went on all last year, and that same thing was done

in several other parks here in the city. Who is responsible for the tearing up of these parks, and doing all that work over again? Afterwards they look just about like they did before.

Mr. CAEMMERER. There was a plan made for LaFayette Park, and that was carried out as far as it was possible. Now, it is Mr. Finnan, who is in charge of the National Capital Parks, and Mr. Arnold B. Cammerer, Director of the Park Service; Mr. Finnan is under him. Just why they were required to tear up the park I do not know. It may have been because of the public utilities.

Mr. RICH. Do you have to approve those before they are worked

out?

Mr. CAEMMERER. No, sir; not that detail. Our Commission approved the design for the park.

Mr. RICH. Did you approve any of the changing over of the parks here in the last year? Who had supervision of that work that was being done in the parks?

Mr. CAEMMERER. The Commission only passes on the general plan, but no new plan was prepared.

Mr. RICH. I stopped up in front of the Hotel Hamilton, in that park there, where they were taking out the land, and I asked them what they were doing. I know I asked fully a dozen different men, and I could not find out what it was about.

Mr. CAEMMERER. Probably I can give Mr. Rich that information. We are responsible for that work.

Mr. RICH. What were you trying to do?

Mr. CAEMMERER. I will be glad to tell you. Our experts, upon investigation, found in a lot of these parks, that no matter how much we tried to plant new material to save the trees and grass, it was a very costly proposition. We got the opinion of the Department of Agriculture on the soil, and the soil had been impoverished to such an extent that they found the cheapest thing to do was to dig out the old soil and put in new soil.

Mr. RICH. Why did you dig it up, put it back, and then dig it up again?

Mr. CAEMMERER. That is what they did. If you will remember during 2 or 3 weeks during the height of the flood period those parks looked very bad. During that time we were trying to get this top soil from the farms in the vicinity to replace the impoverished old soil that could not be used. These floods came, and then we were busy piling up sandbags down there for protection from the flood, and just could not get that top soil in there. So, for 2 or 3 weeks we had that condition. We had a lot of inquiries about it. It is a perfectly reasonable inquiry you are making, but that is the reason why the parks have gone back into shape. Take that little square in front of the Powhatan Hotel. There were beatiful lilacs in there, and there was no food you could give those lilacs to get them to live. When we looked at the roots, they were filled with borers, that had come with age, just like old trees, and we found a great many trees in Lafayette Park that were dying, and we had to do something to save them.

Mr. FITZPATRICK. How about Meridian Park?

Mr. CAEMMERER. No; Meridian Park is practically a new proposition, and the soil is good.

Mr. FITZPATRICK. They dug out the old top soil there.