The railway was leased in October, 1881, for a period of 25 years to the Cincinnati, New Orleans & Texas Pacific Railway Co., a commom-carrier company, under the laws of Ohio, which lease was extended in 1902 to 1966. The lessee company, being only a common-carrier company, has only limited powers. It has no power of eminent domain in the States of Kentucky and Tennessee, through which States the greater part of the railway extends. Under the laws of the respective States the power of eminent domain is vested in the trustees of the railway, and all necessary proceedings for appropriation must be taken in their names. They have the exclusive power with reference thereto. In view of the powers and obligations of the trustees under the said laws, and in order that they might perform their trust duties with reference to the railway and its operation, a provision was inserted in the original lease of 1881 to the effect that the trustees should be provided with annual free passes over the line of railway and be furnished with a car for the purposes of inspection of the line of railway four times a year. This provision of the contract of lease was observed by the lessee company from the execution of the lease until 1912, a period of 31 years, when the question of the issuance of the passes to the trustees and their officers and agents being mooted, the question was presented to the Interstate Commerce Commission, which body held that the trustees were to be classed as the directors of a nonoperating company whose road was under lease, and as such were not entitled to free transportation over the leased railway. The Interstate Commerce Commission, however, justifies the lessee company in carrying the trustees over the line of railway in official private cars on tours of inspec tion, pay for transportation, however, being required for any person accompanying said trustees, and same has been paid. The provision for the issuance of the passes and the furnishing of the car for inspection is as much an obligation on the part of the lessee company under the lease as the payment of rental. The right of the trustees to said passes is a vested right under contract dated October 12, 1881, long prior to the passage of the interstate commerce act. The action of the commission in justifying the refusal of the company to issue the passes results in the lessee company violating one of the provisions of the contract of lease. It is only by passing over the railway at any and all times that the duties of the trustees with reference to care, supervision, and inspection can be performed, and the method provided is the only practical one. They are in no sense passengers in the ordinary acceptance of that term, and surely not as the term is used in the interstate commerce act. The inhibition against free transportation in that act refers to the common and universal right existing in everyone to be transported by a common carrier for hire. The act endeavors to protect everyone in that right, and so prohibits the carrying of anyone (saving exceptions named) free, thus making all equal. But to be thus made equal by right they must have equal rights. This is what differentiates the trustees. The five trustees and their officers and agents are the only persons entitled to free transportation. They have the right by contract to demand the free transportation, hence they are not to be classed as passengers. They are not the temporary directors of a nonoperating company. They are the holders in trust of a great property, in which they have a perpetual right and regarding which they are charged with important duties under a legislative trust, which they can only carry out in the manner contracted for in the lease of the railway. It is to correct the effect of this determination of the Interstate Commerce Commission, which if allowed to stand permits the lessee company to violate one of the main conditions of its contract of lease, that this bill is presented. Free transportation being as necessary on the part of the trustees in order to properly perform their duties of care, supervision, and inspection of the line of railway as it is on the part of the officials of the railway in the operation of the railway, the bill provides that nothing contained in the interstate commerce act or the acts amendatory thereof shall be so construed as to prevent the lessee of the Cincinnati Southern Railway Co. from complying with its obligation assumed in leasing said railway of furnishing free transportation to the trustees of said railway, their officers and agents. In a brief filed by the trustees subsequent to the hearings before the committee is a letter by the vice president of the lessee company, dated March 10, 1916, to the author of this measure, in which he says: "I beg to say that, so far as the lessees are concerned, namely, the Cincinnati, New Orleans & Texas Pacific Railway Co., we not only have no objection to furnishing these passes, if according to law, but we have asked the Interstate Commerce Com mission on two separate occasions to permit us to do so.' FEDERAL BUILDING, HONOLULU, HAWAII. FEBRUARY 12, 1917.-Ordered to be printed. Mr. SWANSON, from the Committee on Public Buildings and Grounds, submitted the following REPORT. [To accompany S. 7872.] The Committee on Public Buildings and Grounds, to which was referred Senate bill 7872, to confirm and ratify the sale of the Federalbuilding site at Honolulu, Territory of Hawaii, and for other purposes, having considered the same, report it to the Senate with the recommendation that it do pass. The necessity and purpose of this legislation is fully set forth in a letter to the Committee on Public Buildings and Grounds of the House of Representatives, which is attached and made a part of this report. The letter is from Hon. B. R. Newton, Assistant Secretary of the Treasury, and is as follows: TREASURY DEPARTMENT, OFFICE OF ASSISTANT SECRETARY, Washington, December 26, 1916. MY DEAR CONGRESSMAN: Under the authority given by Congress this department purchased a site for a post office, courthouse, and customhouse at Honolulu, Hawaii, at a cost of $104,531.29. Due to subsequent developments, this site proved to be too small, and Congress authorized the acquisition of additional land for its enlargement, but the awards in condemnation proceedings instituted for the purpose were in excess of the amount made available for the purpose. Thereafter additional legislation was enacted authorizing the Secretary of the Treasury to sell said site at not less than $165,000 and to acquire a new site at not to exceed $275,000. A new site has been selected, and steps are being perfected for its acquisition at a cost of $200,000. The old site has been offered for sale at public auction, and the highest price offered, after a somewhat spirited competition, was $475,000, which bid has been accepted. The act of Congress approved March 3, 1915, authorizing the sale of the old site requires, among other things, that notice of the sale be given "by advertisement for 30 days in at least two newspapers" published in Honolulu. Advertisements were published in two daily papers, each paper having published the advertisement for 11 days between September 14 and October 19, 1916, covering a period of more than 30 days. Some question has been raised as to the sufficiency of this advertising of the sale in question, it being suggested that the advertisement should have appeared daily for 30 consecutive days prior to the sale. The decisions of the courts are not uniform as to what constitutes compliance with a direction of the character contained in the act in question, and in view of the large sum bid and in order that no question may be raised hereafter touching the validity of the advertisement, it is deemed best to have correctionary legislation in this case in the nature of a ratification of the sale. Inasmuch as you have been in Honolulu and are familiar with the old and new sites, the department ventures to bring this matter to your attention with request that you take such action in connection with the matter as your large experience in public building affairs may suggest. There is inclosed a tentative draft of a bill which, if enacted into law, will be satis factory to the bidder. Very truly, yours, B. R. NEWTON, Assistant Secretary. Mr. SIMMONS, from the Committee on Finance, submitted the fol lowing REPORT. [To accompany H. R. 20573.] The Committee on Finance, to whom was referred the bill (H. R. 20573) entitled "An act to provide increased revenue to defray the expenses of the increased appropriations for the Army and Navy and the extensions of fortifications, and for other purposes," having had the same under consideration, report it back to the Senate with sundry amendments and recommend that the bill as amended do pass. The purposes of the bill and the necessity for this legislation are fully stated in the report of the Committee on Ways and Means of the House of Representatives, part of which is as follows: NECESSITY FOR THIS LEGISLATION. This legislation is made necessary because of the urgent need of funds with which to meet the extraordinarily large appropriations for the military and naval establishments and fortifications. Taking the appropriations for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1916, carried in the Army, Navy, and fortifications appropriation bills, together with the appropriations for arsenals and military posts carried in the sundry civil appropriation bill, as representing the normal appropriations for national defense, the like appropriations for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1917, and the similar estimates for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1918, will show an increase in the appropriations for national defense during these two years amounting to over $873,000,000. The following table shows the appropriations carried by the Army, Navy, and fortifications bills and the appropriations for arsenals and military posts carried in the sundry civil appropriation bill for the fiscal years ending June 30, 1916 and 1917, and the like estimated appropriations for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1918: ESTIMATED APPROPRIATIONS, DISBURSEMENTS, AND RECEIPTS FOR THE FISCAL YEAR ENDING JUNE 30, 1918. The regular annual estimates and the supplemental estimates of appropriations for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1918, amount to $1,711,000,000. In this total is included $60,748,000 for the sinking fund, which is merely a bookkeeping account, and $325,355,820 for the Postal Service, which takes care of itself. In estimating the necessary revenue to meet appropriations it is therefore proper to deduct both of these estimates. The amount for which it is necessary to provide revenue after deducting the aforementioned estimates is, therefore, $1,324,896,180. During the fiscal year ending June 30, 1918, the Secretary of the Treasury estimates that because of the expenditures to meet authorizations under exist ing law the total disbursements will be $1,368,445,910, or $43,549,730 greater than the estimated appropriations after deducting the estimates for the sinking fund and the Postal Service. The following statement shows the estimated disbursements for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1918, the estimated revenue to be collected under existing law, the estimated excess of disbursements over receipts, and the amount neces sary to be raised by bond issues or new revenue legislation: Total estimated disbursements for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1918-. Estimated revenue under present law: Customs. Internal revenue Ordinary. Emergency revenues and receipts from mu $1,368, 445, 910 $230, 000, 000 325, 000, 000 nition manufacturers' and estate taxes. 134, 000, 000 Deduct estimated balance in general fund, June 30, 1917-- 1, 001, 750,000 366, 695, 910 64, 305, 971 302, 389, 939 Estimated deficit in general fund, June 30, 1918_ 100, 000, 000 THE PROBLEM PRESENTED. 402, 389, 939 The question that immediately arises is, How shall this money be raised? After carefully considering the various available sources of additional revenue, |