Imagini ale paginilor
PDF
ePub

mencing and completing the construction of a bridge across the Mahoning River at or near Cedar Street, Youngstown, Ohio, if amended as indicated in red thereon.

F. TRUBEE DAVISON,

Acting Secretary of War.

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE,

Washington, D. C., April 29, 1930. Hon. JAMES S. PARKER, Chairman Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce,

House of Representatives. DEAR MR. PARKER: Careful consideration has been given to the bill, H. R. 11700, transmitted with your letter of April 17 with request for a report thereon and such views relative thereto as the department might desire to communicate.

This bill would extend for one and three years, respectively, from the date of its approval, the times for commencing and completing the construction of the bridge across the Mahoning River, at or near Cedar Street, in the city of Youngstown, Ohio, authorized by act of Congress approved February 13, 1929, to be built by the commissioners of Mahoning County. Favorable action on the bill is recommended. Sincerely,

R. W. DUNLAP, Acting Secretary. The act of Congress approved February 13, 1929, referred to in the bill, is as follows:

(PUBLIC—No. 734—70TH CONGRESS)

(H. R. 14919) AN ACT Granting the consent of Congress to the commissioners of Mahoning County, Ohio, to construct maintain, and operate a free highway bridge across the Mahoning River at or near Cedar Street, Youngstown, Mahoning County, Ohio

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the consent of Congress be, and it is hereby, granted to the commissioners of Mahoning County, Ohio, to construct, maintain, and operate a free highway bridge, together with the necessary approaches thereto, across the Mahoning River, at a point suitable to the interests of navigation, at or near Cedar Street, Youngstown, Mahoning County, Ohio, in accordance with the provisions of an act entitled "An act to regulate the construction of bridges and other structures over navigable waters," approved March 23, 1906.

Sec. 2. That the right to alter, amend, or repeal this act is hereby expressly reserved. Approved, February 13, 1929.

O

}

SENATE

718T CONGRESS

2d Session

{

REPORT No. 915

BRIDGE ACROSS THE ARKANSAS RIVER, OZARK, ARK.

JUNE 9 (calendar day, JUNE 13), 1930.-Ordered to be printed

Mr. Dale, from the Committee on Commerce, submitted the following

REPORT

(To accompany H. R. 11786)

The Committee on Commerce, to whom was referred the bill (H. R. 11786) to legalize a bridge across the Arkansas River at the town of Ozark, Franklin County, Ark., having considered the same, report favorably thereon and recommend that the bill do pass without amendment.

The bill has the approval of the Departments of War and Agriculture, as will appear by the annexed House Report No. 1367, which is made a part of this report.

(House Report No. 1367, Seventy-first Congress, second session] The Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce, to whom was referred the bill (H. R. 11786) granting the consent of Congress to the Arkansas State Highway Commission to construct, maintain, and operate a toll bridge across the Arkansas River, at a point suitable to the interests of navigation, at or near the town of Ozark, Franklin County, Ark., having considered and amended the same, report thereon with a recommendation that it pass.

Amend the bill as follows:

SECTION 1: Strike out all after the enacting clause and insert the following in lieu thereof:

“That the bridge now being constructed across the Arkansas River at the town of Ozark, Franklin County, Arkansas, by the Arkansas State Highway Commission, if completed in accordance with plans accepted by the Chief of Engineers and the Secretary of War, as providing suitable facilities for navigation, shall be a lawful structure, and shall be subject to the conditions and limitations of the act entitled 'An act to regulate the construction of bridges over navigable waters,' approved March 23, 1906, and subject to the conditions and limitations contained in this act."

Page 2, after line 22, add the following as a new section:

“Sec. 3. The act of Congress approved April 7, 1930, entitled 'An act granting the consent of Congress to the Arkansas State Highway Commission to construct, maintain, and operate a free highway bridge across the Arkansas River at or near the city of Ozark, Franklin County, Arkansas,' is hereby repealed.” Page 2, line 23, correct “Sec. 3.” to read “Sec. 4."

SR-71-2—VOL 2- -65

[ocr errors]

Amend the title so as to read:

“To legalize a bridge across the Arkansas River at the town of Ozark, Franklin County, Arkansas."

The bill has the approval of the War and Agriculture Departments, as will appear by the letters attached.

WAR DEPARTMENT, April 30, 1930. Respectfully returned to the chairman Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce, House of Representatives.

The accompanying bill, H. R. 11786, Seventy-first Congress, second session, proposes to authorize the building of a bridge across the Arkansas River at or near the town of Ozark, Franklin County, Ark., by the Arkansas State Highway Commission.

Under date of May 21, 1929, the Arkansas State Highway Commission made application to this department for approval of plans for the construction of the bridge referred to in the above-mentioned bill, but in view of the fact that such work was not authorized by Congress, as required by section 9 of the river and harbor act of March 3, 1899, the department was without authority to approve the plans thereof. However, since it was desired to construct the said bridge without delay, the Arkansas State Highway Commission was notified that no objection would be interposed by this department to the proposed construction in accordance with the plans submitted, but that an act of Congress should be obtained to legalize the structure. Accordingly, the bill has been amended to harmonize with the facts cited above, and as thus amended I know of no objection to its favorable consideration.

Attention is invited to Public No. 91, approved April 7, 1930, entitled "An act granting the consent of Congress to the Arkansas State Highway Commission to construct, maintain, and operate a free highway bridge across the Arkansas River at or near the city of Ozark, Franklin County, Ark.” As it is evident that it is not the intention of the highway commission to proceed under the provisions of this act, it is believed that, for the simplification of record, it should be repealed. A section has been included in the accompanying bill to this effect.

F. TRUBEE DAVISON,

Acling Secretary of War.

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE,

Washington, D. C., April 29, 1930. Hon. James S. PARKER, Chairman Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce,

House of Representatives. DEAR MR. PARKER: Careful consideration has been given to the bill, H. R. 11786, transmitted with your letter of April 22 with request for a report thereon and such views relative thereto as the department might desire to communicate.

This bill would authorize the State Highway Commission of Arkansas to construct, maintain, and operate a bridge and approaches thereto across the Arkansas River, at or near the town of Ozark, Franklin County, State of Arkansas. The State also will be authorized to charge tolls for transit over the bridge, the rates of toll to be so adjusted as to provide a fund sufficient to pay the reasonable cost of maintaining, repairing, and operating the bridge, and to provide a sinking fund sufficient to amortize the financing cost within a period not to exceed 20 years from the date of completion. Thereafter the bridge would be maintained and operated free of tolls or the rates of toll would have to be so adjusted as to provide only for the proper maintenance, repair, and operation of the bridge and its approaches. The location indicated for the proposed bridge is not directly on the system of Federal-aid highways approved for Arkansas but would constitute a lateral connection therewith. Favorable action on the bill is recommended. Sincerely,

R. W. DUNLAP, Acting Secretary.

}

SENATE

718T CONGRESS

2d Session

{

REPORT No. 916

RECEIVERSHIPS OF JOINT-STOCK LAND BANKS UNDER

FEDERAL FARM LOAN ACT

JUNE 9 (calendar day, JUNE 13), 1930.—Ordered to be printed

Mr. NORBECK, from the Committee on Banking and Currency, sub

mitted the following

REPORT

(To accompany S. 3444)

The Committee on Banking and Currency, to whom was referred the bill (S. 3444) to amend the Federal farm loan act with respect to receiverships of joint-stock land banks, and for other purposes, having considered the same, report favorably thereon with the recommendation that the bill do pass without amendment.

This is a departmental bill, the enactment of which is urgently recommended by the Secretary of the Treasury and the members of the Federal Farm Loan Board. The Secretary's letter to the President of the Senate, setting forth the situation with which the Farm Loan Board is now confronted with respect to certain joint-stock land bank receiverships and the vital importance that legislation be promptly enacted clarifying and defining the powers of the board with respect to these receiverships, appears as follows, and is made a part of this report:

THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY,

Washington, January 23, 1930. The PRESIDENT OF THE SENATE,

Washington, D. C. SIR: No doubt your attention has already been directed to the fact that on November 4, 1929, the Supreme Court of the United States, in case No. 39, October term, 1929, J. R. Wheeler, petitioner, v. Howard Greene, receiver Bankers Joint Stock Land Bank of Milwaukee, Wis., on writ of certiorari, reversed the Circuit Court of Appeals of the Seventh Circuit and held that the Federal Farm Loan Board and a receiver appointed by it under the Federal farm loan act do not have the power to enforce the liability of shareholders created by section 16 of the Federal farm loan act, but that it is a liability to creditors which the creditors may be left to enforce. The opinion delivered in the case indicates that the decision of the court was based upon a comparison of certain provisions of the national bank act with provisions of section 29 of the Federal farm loan act relating to receiverships, and discloses what appears to be a misunderstanding of the operation of the Federal farm loan system.

As you are aware, receiverships have been instituted under the Federal farm loan act for three joint-stock land banks, the outstanding liabilities of which according to their books are more than $70,000,000—the Kansas City Joint Stock Land Bank of Kansas City, Mo.; the Bankers Joint Stock Land Bank of Milwaukee, Wis.; and the Ohio Joint Stock Land Bank of Cincinnati, Ohio, with headquarters now at Indianapolis, Ind. These receiverships are in various stages of administration and, in the case of the Bankers Joint Stock Land Bank of Milwaukee and the Ohio Joint Stock Land Bank of Cincinnati, dividends of nearly $2,700,000 have already been paid to bondholders from the proceeds of pledged assets. In addition, the receiver of the Kansas City bank has accumulated more than $10,000,000 proceeds of liquidated assets, and over $800,000 has been collected by the three receivers upon the assessments against the shareholders. According to the records of the three receiverships there are about 9,000 bondholders and stockholders scattered throughout the United States and in some instances outside this country.

In the circumstances, it is essential for the welfare of the Federal farm loan system that the receiverships be administered to a conclusion by the Federal Farm Loan Board in the most expeditious and economical manner practicable for the benefit of the bondholders, stockholders, and others interested, and, for reasons which are set out in considerable detail in a statement attached, there is an urgent and pressing need for the passage by the Congress as soon as possible of legislation clarifying and defining the powers of the Federal Farm Loan Board. Therefore, a draft of a proposed bill has been prepared, which is submitted herewith, to amend the Federal farm loan act, as explained in the attached statement. In this connection, I am advised that during a recent meeting the legislative committee of the Joint Stock Land Bankers' Association agreed that there should be legislation making it clear that the Federal Farm Loan Board, in the handling of receiverships under the Federal farm loan act, is vested with the powers possessed by the Comptroller of the Currency in connection with receiverships under the national bank act, and that the proceedings heretofore of the Federal Farm Loan Board in the administration of the existing receiverships should be ratified and confirmed by the Congress.

As the matter is one of vital importance to the system, I trust that it will receive early and favorable consideration by the Congress. Respectfully,

A. W. MELLON,

Secretary of the Treasury. An extensive explanation of the entire situation accompanied draft of proposed bill and the Secretary's letter of recommendation, which also included a statement regarding the administration of the three joint-stock land banks in receivership and the powers of the Farm Board with respect thereto in connection with this proposed bill, and statements of condition of Federal land banks, joint-stock land banks, and the Federal intermediate credit banks. This information appears in Senate Document No. 77, Seventy-first Congress, second session.

A duplicate set of this material was transmitted to the Speaker of the House of Representatives by the Secretary of the Treasury on January 23, 1930, and a bill H. Ř. 9433 corresponding to S. 3444 was introduced in the House of Representatives on February 3, 1930.

In substance, the bill provides that the Federal Farm Loan Board and the receivers appointed by it, respectively, in connection with receiverships heretofore or hereafter instituted for banks or associations under the farm loan act are and shall be vested with all the powers and authority which at the date of the enactment of the bill are vested in the Comptroller of the Currency and receivers appointed by him, respectively, under the national bank laws with respect to national bank receiverships, as fully as if such powers and authority were specifically set forth in the farm loan act but without thereby limiting any of the provisions of the act or the general powers of the Federal

« ÎnapoiContinuați »