HON. HENRY L. MYERS, DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR, Chairman Committee on Public Lands, United States Senate. MY DEAR SENATOR: I am in receipt of the request of your committee for report on S. 592, a bill entitled "A bill to authorize an exchange of lands with the State of North Dakota for promotion of experiments in dry-land agriculture, and for other purposes." In response, I have to state that the provisions of this bill are identical with those of S. 7648, Sixty-third Congress, third session, introduced by the same author, except that in line 10, after the word "vacant," the words "surveyed, unreserved have been inserted. This amendment was suggested in my report of February 25, 1915, recommending favorable action on said bill. I inclose herewith a copy of my said report of February 25, 1915, thereon. From correspondence and memoranda on file in this department, in connection with the original bill, it appears that the Secretary of the Department of Agriculture considers the school section 16 described in the bill necessary for the use of that department to enable it to carry out successfully its experiments in dry-land agriculture at the Northern Great Plains Field Station, at Mandan, N. Dak. In view thereof, I recommend that the bill be passed. Very truly, yours, FRANKLIN K. LANE. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR, Hon. HENRY L. MYERS, Chairman Committee on Public Lands, United States Senate. MY DEAR SENATOR: In response to your request for a report on Senate bill 7648, proposing to authorize an exchange of lands with the State of North Dakota for the promotion of experiments in dry-land agriculture, and for other purposes, I have the honor to report as follows: Section 16 in township 138 north of range 81 west, fifth principal meridian, which the State proposes to reconvey to the United States under the terms of the bill, was surveyed in 1878, and so far as the records of the General Land Office show at this time title to the lands in said section appears to have passed to the State upon its admission into the Union as a part of its grant for the support of common schools. The lands were withdrawn as chiefly valuable for coal by Executive order dated July 7, 1910, but were classified as noncoal lands by Executive order of June 7, 1913. There are no other withdrawals or reservations of record at this time affecting said lands. In view of the foregoing, and of the fact that the object of the proposed legislation is a worthy one, I recommend the passage of the bill, providing same be amended by inserting in line 10 thereof, after word "vacant," the words "surveyed, unreserved." Very truly, yours, A. A. JONES, First Assistant Secretary. O BRIDGE ACROSS BRAZOS RIVER, TEX. APRIL 1, 1916.-Referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be printed. Mr. RAYBURN, from the Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce, submitted the following The Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce, to whom was referred the bill (H. R. 12362) granting the consent of Congress to the Dallas & Southwestern Motorway Co. to construct a bridge across the Brazos River in the State of Texas, having considered the same, report thereon with amendment and as so amended recommend that pass. it The bill as amended has the approval of the War Department, as will appear by the letter attached and which is made a part of this report. Amend the bill as follows: Page 1, line 6, after the word "point," insert the words "suitable to the interests of navigation." Hon. W. C. ADAMSON, WAR DEPARTMENT, Washington, March 11, 1916. Chairman Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce, House of Representatives. MY DEAR SIR: I beg to acknowledge your reference to this department of House bill No. 12362, current session of Congress, granting the consent of Congress to the Dallas & Southwestern Motorway Co. to construct a bridge across the Brazos River, in the State of Texas. The necessity for the passage of the bill is not apparent, inasmuch as the Brazos River lies wholly within the limits of the State of Texas, and under the general law contained in section 9 of the river and harbor act approved March 3, 1899, a bridge may be built thereover under authority of the laws of that State, provided the plans are submitted to and approved by the Chief of Engineers and the Secretary of War before construction is commenced. The bill, however, is in the usual form adopted by Congress for such measures, and with slight amendment, which has been indicated thereon, will amply provide for the protection of navigation interests. So far as those interests are concerned, I know of no objection to the passage of the bill should its enactment by Congress be desired. Very respectfully, JOHN C. SCOFIELD, Assistant and Chief Clerk. Ο BRIDGE ACROSS THE WABASH RIVER, WABASH, IND. APRIL 1, 1916.-Referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be printed. Mr. CULLOP, from the Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce, submitted the following REPORT. [To accompany H. R. 13669.] The Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce, to whom was referred the bill (H. R. 13369) to authorize the county of Wabash, in the State of Indiana, to construct a bridge across the Wabash River, at the city of Wabash, Ind., having considered the same, report thereon with amendment and as so amended recommend that pass. it The bill as amended has the approval of the War Department, as will appear by the letter attached and which is made a part of this report. Amend the bill as follows: Page 1, line 4, after the word "bridge," insert the words "and approaches thereto." Page 1, lines 7 and 8, strike out the words "approved June twentythird, nineteen hundred and ten." Page 1, line 9, strike out the words "amend an act entitled 'an act to.'" Page 1, line 10, strike out the words "dams across" and insert in lieu thereof the words "bridges over.' Page 1, lines 10 and 11, strike out the words "June twenty-first" and insert in lieu thereof the words "March twenty-third." WAR DEPARTMENT, March 28, 1916. Respectfully returned to the chairman Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce, House of Representatives. The Chief of Engineers reports that H. R. 13669, Sixty-fourth Congress, first session, "To authorize the County of Wabash, in the State of Indiana, to construct a bridge across the Wabash River, at the city of Wabash, Ind.," if amended as indicated in red on the accompanying copy, makes ample provision for the protection of the interests committed to the War Department; and, as thus amended, the department knows of no objection to the favorable consideration of the bill by Congress, so far as those interests are concerned. TO AMEND SECTION 99, CHAPTER 231, LAWS RELATING TO THE JUDICIARY. APRIL 1, 1916.-Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union and ordered to be printed. Mr. CARAWAY, from the Committee on the Judiciary, submitted the following REPORT. [To accompany H. R. 11878.] The Committee on the Judiciary, to whom was referred the bill H. R. 11878, having considered the same, report thereon with a recommendation that it do pass with the following amendments: Strike out the word "Northeastern," in line 9, page 2, and insert the word "Northwestern." At the end of the bill add the following words: Provided, That the Government of the United States shall incurr no expense for rent, light, heat, water, or janitor service for the building in which court shall be held until such time as the Government may erect its own court room. STATEMENT. The new division provided for in this bill, to be known as the central division, will include eight counties, three of the counties being taken from the southeastern division, one from the northwestern division, and four from the southwestern division. After the boundaries of the different divisions are changed by the passage of this bill the population of each division will be as follows: Southeastern division, 109,102; northwestern division, 90,716; southwestern division, from which most of the population of the new division is taken, 146,896; the central division (created by this bill), 85,316. Jamestown is a city of about 6,000 population, located about midway between Fargo and Bismarck, where terms of the United States court are now held. The distance to Fargo is 92 miles and to Bismarck 102 miles. The population of the different counties in the proposed central division is as follows: Dickey, 10,094; Eddy, 5,684; Foster, 6,054; Griggs, 6,567; Lamoure, 11,453; Sheridan, 8,169; Stutsman, 24,091; Wells, 13,204. The population of North Dakota is likely to increase rapidly in the future, judging from the fact that it was the fifth State in point of increase of population during the period from 1900 to 1910, and also from the fact that less than two-fifths of the area of North Dakota is now under cultivation. The towns within the proposed central division are for the most part located upon branch lines, not only long distances from the present places for holding United States court, but the railroad connections and train schedules are inconvenient. The following tabulation will show the distance from one point in each of the counties to the present place of holding court and the reduced mileage to Jamestown, the proposed new place for holding a term of court: La Moure, Lamoure County, to Fargo. Mose, Griggs County, to Jamestown.. New Rockford, Eddy County, to Devils Lake.. New Rockford, Eddy County, to Jamestown.. Pingree, Stutsman County, to Jamestown. McClusky, Sheridan County, to Bismarck. McClusky, Sheridan County, to Jamestown... Miles. 88 49 124 85 183 81 146 44 78 60 190 88 102 21 209 107 All points in Griggs County will be made still closer to Jamestown by the new Midland Continental Railway now constructed north as far as Wimbledon. The members of the bar located within the proposed central district are favorable to the passage of the bill. United States Judge Amidon, Melvin E. Hildreth, United States attorney, and John Carmody, assistant United States attorney for North Dakota, have recommended its passage. The establishment of a term of court at Jamestown will, in the judgment of the committee, for the reasons stated, result in a saving of both time and money to litigants, and the passage of the bill is recommended. |