In view of the foregoing, I recommend a favorable report be made on the bill for a term of court at Orlando, providing the bill is amended so as to abolish the terms of court now established at Fernandina and Ocala.

Respectfully,

General Agent and Chief Clerk.

There follows, in compliance with the rule, copy of the law showing the old language printed in brackets and the new language in italics: The State of Florida is divided into two districts, to be known as the northern and southern districts of Florida. The southern district shall include the territory embraced on the first day of July, 1910, in the counties of Baker, Bradford, Brevard, Citrus, Clay, Columbia, Dade, De Soto, Duval, Hamilton, Hernando, Hillsboro, Lake, Lee, Madison, Manatee, Marion, Monroe, Nassau, Orange, Osceola, Palm Beach, Pasco, Polk, Putnam, Saint John, Sumter, Suwanee, Saint Lucie, and Volusia. Terms of the district court for the Southern District shall be held at Ocala on the third Monday in January;] at Tampa on the second Monday in February; at Key West on the first Mondays in May and November; at Jacksonville on the first Monday in December; [at Fernandina on the first Monday in April] at Miami on the fourth Monday in April; and at Orlando on the first Monday in October: Provided, That suitable rooms and accommodations for holding court at Orlando are furnished without expense to the United States. The district court for the southern district shall be open at all times for the purpose of hearing and deciding causes of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction. The northern district shall include the territory embraced on the first day of July, 1910, in the counties of Alachua, Calhoun, Escambia, Franklin, Gadsden, Holmes, Jackson, Jefferson, Lafayette, Leon, Levy, Liberty, Santa Rosa, Taylor, Wakulla, Walton, and Washington. Terms of the district court for the northern district shall be held at Tallahassee on the second Monday in January; at Pensacola on the first Mondays in May and November; at Marianna on the first Monday in April; and at Gainesville on the second Mondays in June and December.

O

PERMIT THE COUNTY OF SOLANO IN THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA TO LAY, CONSTRUCT, INSTALL, AND MAINTAIN SEWER OUTLETS IN MARE ISLAND STRAITS, CALIF.

JANUARY 27, 1931.-Committed to the Committee of the Whole House and ordered to be printed

Mr. COYLE, from the Committee on Naval Affairs, submitted the

following

REPORT

[To accompany S. 3184]

The Committee on Naval Affairs of the House of Representatives, to whom was referred the bill (S. 3184) to permit the county of Solano, in the State of California, to lay, construct, install, and maintain sewer outlets over and across the Navy longitudinal dike and accretions thereto in Mare Island Straits, Calif., having had the same under consideration, report favorably thereon without amendment and with the recommendation that the bill do pass.

The purpose of the bill, as expressed in its title, is to facilitate the construction of sewers by the county of Solano, Calif., by permitting the use of Government land under the control of the Navy Department. This meets with the approval of the Navy Department as shown by the following letter addressed to the chairman of the Committee on Naval Affairs of the House of Representatives and which is hereby made a part of this report:

The CHAIRMAN COMMITTEE ON NAVAL AFFAIRS,

NAVY DEPARTMENT, Washington, February 25, 1930.

House of Representatives, Washington, D. C.

MY DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: Replying further to the committee's reference of January 17, 1930, submitting the bill (H. R. 8644) to permit the county of Solano, in the State of California, to lay, construct, install, and maintain sewer outlets over and across the Navy longitudinal dike and accretions thereto in Mare Island Straits, Calif., and requesting report and recommendation, I have the honor to advise you as follows:

The purpose of this bill, as expressed in its title, is to facilitate the construction of sewers by the county of Solano, Calif., by permitting the use of Government land under the control of the Navy Department. The provisions of the bill amply safeguard the interests of the naval service and therefore the Navy Department has no objection to its enactment.

Sincerely yours,

STATE OF FLORIDA

JANUARY 27, 1931.-Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union and ordered to be printed

Mr. ALMON, from the Committee on Roads, submitted the following

REPORT

(To accompany S. 4193]

The Committee on Roads, to which was referred the bill (S. 4193) for the relief of the State of Florida for the damage to and destruction of roads and bridges by the floods of 1928 and 1929, having considered same, report favorably thereon, and recommend that the bill do pass.

The bill authorizes an appropriation of $134,466.69 by the Federal Government as an aid to the State of Florida in the repairing and reconstruction of roads and bridges damaged or destroyed by the unusual floods of 1928 and 1929, and is similar to laws enacted for the relief of the States of New Hampshire, Vermont, Kentucky, Alabama, South Carolina, and Georgia. Following is the complete report of the Department of Agriculture, which was forwarded to the Senate Committee on Post Offices and Post Roads:

Hon. LAWRENCE C. PHIPPS,

Chairman Committee on Post Offices and Post Roads,

United States Senate.

JUNE 2, 1930.

DEAR SENATOR: Further reference is made to your letter of April 18, with which was submitted for report a copy of S. 4193, for the relief of the State of Florida in the matter of damage to and destruction of roads and bridges by floods in 1928 and 1929.

The bill proposes to authorize an appropriation of $632,532.41 for this purpose. The language of the bill conforms to the language recently adopted in making similar appropriations for other States except that the county funds are included with State funds in the sentence beginning with the word "any," line 10, page 2 of the bill, and ending with the word "funds," on line 18 of said page. It is the department's understanding that the policy of Congress with respect to appropriations of this character has been and is that county funds should not be used for the purpose of meeting the Federal appropriations, but that the theory of the appropriations was that the damage so depleted the local or county resources as to render the necessary restoration and reconstruction work too burdensome to be borne locally and that the Federal Government would make a contribution if the State, from State sources, would make a like contribution. The committee there