« ForrigeFortsett »
TO CONSTRUCT A BRIDGE ACROSS THE RED RIVER AT OR NEAR BOYCE, LA.
FEBRUARY 13, 1917.-Ordered to be printed.
Mr. SHEPPARD, from the Committee on Commerce, submitted the
[To accompany H. R. 18529.]
The Committee on Commerce, to which was referred the bill (H R. 18529) granting the consent of Congress to the police jury of Rapides Parish, La., to construct a bridge across Red River at or near Boyce, La., having considered the same, report thereon with a recommendation that it pass.
The bill has the approval of the War Department, as will appear by the letter attached and which is made a part of this report.
WAR DEPARTMENT, December 30, 1916. Respectfully returned to the chairman Committee of Interstate and Foreign Commerce, House of Representatives.
So far as the interests committed to this department are concerned, I know of no. objection to the favorable consideration by Congress of the accompanying bill, H. R. 18529, present session, for the construction of the proposed bridge across the Red River, La.
64TH CONGRESS, 2d Session.
PUBLIC BUILDING, YONKERS, N. Y.
REPORT No. 1052
FEBRUARY 14, 1917.-Ordered to be printed.
Mr. WADSWORTH, from the Committee on Public Buildings and Grounds, submitted the following
[To accompany S. 8082.]
The Committee on Public Buildings and Grounds, to whom was referred S. 8082, authorizing the acquisition of a site and the erection. thereon of a public building at Yonkers, N. Y., report the same favorably without amendment and with a recommendation that it be passed.
A letter from the Assistant Secretary of the Treasury, addressed to Hon. James A. O'Gorman, under date of January 26, 1917, is hereby appended and made a part of this report.
Washington, January 26, 1917.
MY DEAR SENATOR: This department has received a letter, dated January 16, 1917. from Mr. Artnur D. Lawrence, of Yonkers, N. Y., copy inclosed, regarding the Federal building site situation in that city. I transmit also a copy of the department's reply to Mr. Lawrence.1
While by constructing a building of special design and virtually eliminating the usual open space for protection from fire at the rear of the post office, the department could construct a Federal building on the portion of the block heretofore acquired. such a solution of the problem would be for the best interests of the Government or the local public.
In accordance with its understanding of the wishes of the citizens of Yonkers, the department has had the value of the remainder of the entire block ascertained by condemnation proceedings. The damages awarded for the portion of the block not now owned by the United States (i. e., parcels 1, 3, and 4) aggregate $147,000. Having paid $191,500 for the half block (approximately) already acquired, there remains but $58,500 of the $250,000 limit of cost for site. (In the Yonkers case the limits for site and building are separate, $250,000 each.) The department has not yet requested the Attorney General to have the $147,000 awards confirmed, because, as stated, the balance ($58,500) of the limit of cost for site is not sufficient to pay them by $88,500. Accordingly, the limit of cost for the site must be increased by the last-mentioned sum. The department proceeded to have the value of the remainder of the block ascertained because it understood that the city would take off the Government's hands two I Not printed.
strips of land from opposite sides of the block for street purposes, paying the United States for such strips at the same rate as the same cost the Government. As the department can not condemn land for street purposes and the city did not join in these condemnation proceedings so as to acquire said strips directly, it will be necessary, if the United States acquires said remainder of the block, to have additional legislation also to permit the department to sell said strips to the city.
In addition to the above-mentioned needs for additional legislation, it is estimated that an adequate building for Yonkers, contemplating a site surrounded by streets, will cost $324,000, being $74,000 more than the present limit of cost for the building ($250,000).
These additions to the limits of cost for the site and building aggregate $162,500. The increased limit should be a joint limit of cost for site and building of $662,500. It should be noted here that if the city pays the United States $60,000 (estimated) for the strips of land on two sides of the block, the net increase of limit would be only $112,500, of which $74,000 is due to the necessity for a larger building. (Of course, this $60,000 to be paid by the city would be deposited in the Treasury as a miscellaneous receipt, as usual with the proceeds of such sales of lands.)
If existing law is amended so as to provide a joint limit of cost for both site and building, it will not be necessary to make any further appropriation on account of such limit at this time. The aggregate appropriations ($500,000) heretofore made under the separate limits would be sufficient to permit payment of all awards for the site and to commence the construction of the building.
A draft of the required additional legislation is inclosed. The department has already recommended to Congress an increase of the limit of cost for both site and building, and conferences have been had with Congressman Oglesby. Copy of this letter and the inclosed bill will be forwarded to Mr. Oglesby for his consideration and appropriate action.
The proposed increase of $51,000, as contained in the pending public-building bill, now before the Senate, will not meet the conditions
TO AMEND THE IRRIGATION ACT OF MARCH 3, 1891, ETC.
FEBRUARY 14, 1917.-Ordered to be printed.
Mr. THOMPSON, from the Committee on Irrigation and Reclamation of Arid Lands, submitted the following
[To accompany S. 7710.]
The Committee on Irrigation and Reclamation of Arid Lands, to whom was referred the bill (S. 7710) to amend the irrigation act of March 3, 1891 (26 Stats., 1095), section 18, and to amend section 2 of the act of May 11, 1898 (30 Stats., 404), having carefully considered the same, recommends that the bill do pass with amendments. The bill as amended has the approval of the Interior Department, as will appear by the letter attached and which is made a part of this report.
The letter is as follows:
Hon. MARCUS A. SMITH,
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR,
Chairman Committee on Irrigation and Reclamation of Arid Lands,
United States Senate.
MY DEAR SENATOR: In response to your request therefor, I have the honor to report on S. 7710 as follows:
The purpose of this bill is to authorize rights of way through the public lands of the United States for canals and ditches to be used for drainage purposes. There is no general statute providing for such rights of way, and the necessity for legislation therefor is obvious. The simplest and perhaps most effective way to do this is, as the bill in question proposes, by amendment of section 18 of the act of March 3, 1891 (26 Stat.. 1095), and of section 2 of the act of May 11, 1898 (30 Stat., 404). But the construction of the bill is somewhat misleading and ambiguous, inasmuch as it adds to the first sentence of said section 18 the words "or drainage" and, by implication at least, omits all that follows in said section. I suggest, therefore, that this section be amended so as to read:
"That the right of way through the public lands and reservations of the United States is hereby granted to any canal or ditch company formed for the purpose of irrigation or drainage and duly organized under the laws of any State or Territory, and which shall have filed or may hereafter file with the Secretary of the Interior a copy of its articles of incorporation and due proofs of its organization under the same, to the extent of the ground occupied by the water of the reservoir and of the canal and its laterals and fifty feet on each side of the marginal limits thereof; also the right to take from the public lands adjacent to the line of the canal or ditch material, earth, and stone necessary for the construction of such canal or ditch: Provided, That