Imágenes de páginas

provided for the safe and easy passage of vessels, all in accordance with plans to be submitted to and approved by the Chief of Engineers and the Secretary of War, and that these changes would be required by the 31st day of December, 1910.

After a hearing before Lieut. Col. Burr, of the Corps of Engineers, the time within which the above changes were required to be made was extended to June 1, 1911. At this hearing it was pointed out by said towns and city that they possessed no authority to make any expenditure beyond that necessary for care and maintenance.

(6) Within å few years the United States Government have acquired, by purchase and by eminent domain, title to the land on both sides of the said Weymouth Back River from a point about at or just above the bridge to a point about 8,300 feet above the bridge as a site for a naval magazine.

The Government has begun the development of this property by building about 16,000 feet of railroad track to connect the New York, New Haven & Hartford Railroad with the buildings within the grounds and the proposed wharf to be constructed about 400 feet above the drawbridge and by beginning the erection of buildings, etc. It is said to be the purpose of the United States Government to supply with ammunition from this magazine vessels lying in the Boston Xavy Yard and in Nantasket Roads.

It is claimed by the Government that it will be impossible to accomplish this purpose in an expeditious, efficient, economical manner with the present draw, as the lighters of the type used with beam narrow enough to pass the draw can not be built of sufficient carrying capacity for the work.

It is said the Government proposed to use lighters on this work of a carrying capacity of about 350 tons and an extreme beam of about 34 feet. These lighters are to be towed to and fro by tugs. It is further claimed by the Government that the draw is too narrow eren to admit most of the tugs of the Navy, and with any tide running would be practically impossible for all of them; that this draw has already proven a source of expense to the Government, causing the bids on dredging for its wharf and basin to run 25 per cent higher than they would have run had the draw been wide enough to allow deeper dredges of sufficient size to do the work in the most economical manner to pass through and that if will continue to unnecessarily increase the cost of all the Government water-front improvements and drediging until it is widened.

The construction of the present bridge is such that to increase the width of the draw from 24 feet to not less than 50 feet would be such a substantial alteration that good engineering would require the construction of an entirely new bridge in place of the present one.

As now existing, the bridge is adequate and convenient for all highway purposes, and the draw is of sufficient width to accommodate all navigation locally required except that of the United States Government.

Heretofore the draw has been very little used for commercial purposes. The river is a shallow, crooked, tide-water stream which rapidly narrows a short distance above the bridge and is only navigable for a matter of perhaps 2 miles. For many years at least there has been practically no navigation. Above the bridge there are no and no wharves of any kind. Below the bridge for a distance of about one-half a mile there are summer camps but no wharves and no business structures.

The Bradley Fertilizing Works at a distance of 1} miles below the bridge is the only business structure upon the river. Some 500 feet above the bridge there was formerly a sand bank, from which sand was available for cement making. For some years this sand was sold, and about twice a week a small sloop, about 15 feet beam, was used in transporting it and went through the draw for this purpose. This has been the only navigation with the exception of small pleasure craft that passed through this draw up to the time of the taking of land above the bridge by the Government for the purpose of con structing a magazine.

The Government now owns the same bank and is devoting that section of the shore to the general purposes of its proposed magazine. For a period of two years no sand has been sold, and as a result the semiweekly visits of the above-mentioned sloop have been discontinued.

The present situation as to navigation and the situation for the past two years is that the only traffic through the draw of this bridge is that of the Government in connection with the building of its magazine and occasionally a small pleasure boat which has not required the opening of the draw.

The taking by the Government of so large a tract of territory upon both sides of the river, lying partly in Hingham and partly in Weymouth, has deprived these towns for the public use of taxes, amounting annually to about $700, and has rendered impossible for future development of the land for business or residential purposes.

Presumably the Government, having established a naval magazine there, will take the entire control of the river.


Encouraged by a dictum in the closing paragraph of the opinion · in the case of Union Bridge Co. v. United States (204 U. S., 364), which was as follows:

The petitioners have caused a bill to be introduced into Congress through Congressman Weeks, having for its object the securing of an appropriation sufficient to pay for the additional width of draw required by the Government.

We desire to call attention to what seems to be a great difference in the situation presented in the Union Bridge Co. case above referred to and ours.

It appears that the alterations in the bridge over the Allegheny River were asked for by the whole commercial community.

Very many petitions for it coming in from business houses in and about Pittsburg, representing that the river commerce was of very great magnitude for importance (equal to that in New York Harbor), rapidly increasing in volume, and that the bridge deprived the community of a resonable use of the river in connection with the river business of a great harbor, the Secretary of War was appealed to by the local interests to exercise the powers of his office to abate, or at least mitigate, what was termed a great public nuisance."

On the contrary, in our case the community do not want the draw widened. It is satisfactory as it is. No business interests will be

HR-62-1-vol 1-472

benefited by the widening. No local navigation will be increased or made more convenient. Its widening is solely for the United States Government, which has taken our land and reduced our taxa de property.

It has seemed to the petitioners that whenever the United States Government, solely for its own use, puts such a burden upon small towns which get no benefit, it ought to be the rule that the Government should pay at least so much of the expense as is made necessary by the express requirements of the Government and for which it alone receives the exclusive benefit.


The Federal Government having taken a large area of taxable property from the towns of Hingham and Weymouth, and established a naval magazine (a thing not to be desired in any neighborhood) which confers no local benefit, and having required these towns to incur a large expense not necessary for local needs and in the results of which the Federal Government will be the exclusive user, it would seem that a situation was presented where the Government might contribute without danger of establishing a precedent of furnishing aid for the building of bridges and other acts required from time to time by the exercise by the Secretary of War of the powers conferred upon him by the act of March 3, 1899.



1st Session



AUGUST 4, 1911.-Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the state of

the Union and ordered to be printed.

Mr. TAYLOR of Colorado, from the Committee on the Public Lands,

submitted the following


[To accompany S. J. Res. 34.)

The Committee on the Public Lands, to whom was referred Senate joint resolution No. 34, having had the same under consideration, respectfully submit the following report:

That the Eighteenth General Assembly of the State of Colorado on the 29th day of May, 1911, unanimously passed a memorial to Congress as follows:

Senate concurrent resolution No. 10.-Requesting the Congress of the United States to grant to the State

of Colorado 1,000,000 acres of land under the Carey Act of August 18, 1894. Whereas the State of Colorado did by an act of the general assembly, approved March fifteenth, eighteen hundred and ninety-five, accept the original grant of Congress of one million acres under the Carey Act of August eighteenth, eighteen hundred and ninety-four; and

Whereas the acceptance of said grant has been greatly to the advantage of the State of Colorado; and

Whereas it appears that all of said one million acres has been applied for in approved and pending Carey Act applications; and

Whereas there are prospective applications now being prepared that will require several hundred thousand acres; and

Whereas increased irrigated lands means increased prosperity to the State: Now, therefore,

Be it resolved by the Senate of the Eighteenth General Assembly of the State of Colorado (the House of Representatives concurring therein), That the State of Colorado hereby asks and requests that an additional one million acres of land be granted to the State of Colorado under the provisions of said act of Congress;

And be it further resolved, That a copy of these resolutions be sent to the President of the United States, the President of the United States Senate, and to the Speaker of the House of Representatives at Washington, and further, that the State Board of Land Commissioners as at present constituted be authorized to accept on behalf of the State of Colorado said grant, provided the same is made.


President of the Senate.
GEORGE McLachlan,
Speaker of the House of Representatives.

. Approved May 29, 1911,

John F. SHAFROTH, Governor of the State of Colorado.

That in pursuance of said memorial, House joint resolution 113 was introduced in the House on June 6, and a duplicate thereof, Senate joint resolution 34, was introduced in the Senate on June 12, and the latter was passed by the Senate on July 26, 1911.

In transmitting the said concurrent resolution of the Colorado Legislature, the Colorado State board of land commissioners have very earnestly urged the speedy enactment of this measure in the interest of the development of that State. In support of their recommendation the State board of land commissioners submitted a statement showing the disposition of the 1,000,000 acres awarded the State under the original act of August 18, 1894, known as the Carey Act; and also showing that not only all the original 1,000,000 acres have already been applied for, but 232,120 acres in addition to the original allotment of 1,000,000 acres have been applied for, and more is being applied for all the time. The statement of the board is as follows:

Senate joint memorial No. 10, asking Congress to appropriate 1,000,000 additional acres under the Carey

Act for the State of Colorado.
The reasons for asking for the above appropriation are as follows:

First. That as will be seen from the list hereto attached that there are 230,000 acres now applied for in excess of the million acres allowed this State under the original act of August 18, 1894 (the Carey Act).

Second. That there are now in prospect applications that will be filed in the immediate future that will call for approximately all the remaining acreage asked for.

Third. That the proper application of “The Carey Act” has been of immense benefit to all of the arid States (a) in settling up arid vacant Government lands that can not be settled up in any other way; (6) in increasing the population of the Wetern States and relieving the congestion of the Eastern States; (c) in increased taxatingState, county, and school; (d) in the irrigation of arid lands, increased values of said lands, and increased production of all farm products necessary to supply the everincreasing demand; (e) in securing successful irrigation of lands under proper supervision with proper protection for the small farmer.

Fourth. That the conservation of water in forest reserves can best be consummated by application under this act.


Segregations approved by the Un ted States and open for entry:

List 3..
List 6.
List 7
List 10.
List 11.
List 15.

[blocks in formation]

Permanent segregations made and waiting approval of United

List 9..
List 12.
List 26.

[blocks in formation]

Segregations temporarily withdrawn and waiting action by this

List 9..
List 18.
List 22
List 23.
List 29.
List 30.
List 19.
List 25.

11, 000 100,000 40,000 26,000

1, 120 275,000 10,000 40,000

« AnteriorContinuar »