Imagini ale paginilor
PDF
ePub

and 8, section 32, and lot 4, section 31, township 2 south, range 17 west, Tallahassee meridian, Florida, bordering on Lake Powell

, upon the payment of $1.25 an acre within six months after the passage of the act.

The said land was erroneously omitted from the original survey and subsequently surveyed as public land of the United States, as shown by supplemental plat of survey approved January 29, 1924, and officially filed in the land office at Gainesville, Fla., on June 6, 1924.

Under date of May 22, 1924, all unappropriated lands in sections 30, 31, and 32 of said township were withdrawn by Executive Order No. 4014 in view of legislation proposed in H. R. 8522, introduced April 7, 1924. It provided for the disposition of Florida and Wisconsin lands of the character herein considered, but became a law only as to Wisconsin. (See act of February 27, 1925, (43 Stat. 1013).)

It appears from the correspondence on file in the General Land Office that Alma Laird alleged that she and her predecessors in title have claimed the land under consideration since the year 1893, and that valuable improvements have been erected thereon. However, it also appears that on May 6, 1929, one Hilliard C. Cain was allowed to make homestead entry Gainesville 021908 for lot 7, of said section 32, township 2 south, range 17 west, containing 34.26 acres, and that after publication in the Panama City Weekly for seven weeks of notice of the entry final certificate was issued thereon November 15, 1929.

With the possible exception of said lot 7, it appears that if Mrs. Laird could establish her color of title claim as alleged she might be able to obtain title from the Government under the act of December 22, 1928 (45 Stat. 1069), which authorizes issuance of patents for land held under color of title for more than 20 years, with valuable improvements or cultivation. However, notwithstanding the color of title act, if the committee is satisfied that Alma Laird is the owner of the aforesaid lots (with the exception of said lot 7), I will interpose no objection to the enactment of the proposed legislation.

C. C. MOORE, Commissioner. O

STATE OF ALABAMA

FEBRUARY 19, 1930.—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. 2093)

The Committee on Roads, to which was referred the bill (S. 2093) for the relief of the State of Alabama for the damage to and destruction of roads and bridges by the floods of 1929, having considered the same, report favorably thereon, with the following amendment, and recommend that as amended the bill do pass.

The amendment is as follows:
On page 3, line 2, strike out the period and insert a colon and the

a following:

Provided further, That no portion of this appropriation shall be used except on highways and bridges now in the Federal-aid highway system in Alabama, or the necessary relocation of such roads and bridges.

This amendment does not alter the purpose of the bill, but makes it applicable to the existing laws and regulations governing the expenditures of money by the Federal Government in cooperation with the several States, on the roads of the Federal-aid system of highways, and is the result of the recommendation of the favorable report of the Department of Agriculture sent to the committee on February 17, 1930, and which also contained a statement that this legislation does not conflict with the financial program of the President. The committee was unanimous in its report on this bill.

This bill authorizes an appropriation of $1,660,000 by the Federal Government as an aid to the State of Alabama in the repairing and reconstruction of roads and bridges damaged or destroyed by the unusual floods of 1929 and is similar to laws enacted for the relief of the States of New Hampshire, Vermont, and Kentucky. Following is the complete report of the Secretary of Agriculture:

FEBRUARY 17, 1930. Hon. Cassius C. DOWELL,

Chairman Committee on Roads, House of Representatives. DEAR MR. DOWELL: Receipt is acknowledged of your letter of February 8, with which was inclosed a copy of S. 2093 with request for a report thereon and such views relative thereto as the department may desire to communicate.

This bill would authorize an appropriation of $1,660,000 as a reimbursement or contribution in aid from the United States to the State of Alabama for moneys expended in repairing and reconstructing roads and bridges damaged and destroyed by the floods of 1929, and also for expenditure hereafter in the restoration or reconstruction of roads and bridges on the Federal aid highway system so damaged or destroyed under rules and regulations to be prescribed by the Secretary of Agriculture. Any portion of the sum proposed to be authorized would become available when the State of Alabama shows to the satisfaction of the Secretary of Agriculture that either before or after the approval of this act it has expended or made available for expenditure for the same purpose a like sum from Ŝtate funds. Out of any appropriations made for carrying out the provisions of the bill this department would be authorized to use not to exceed 242 per cent for the purpose of meeting administrative expenses.

Following the floods in Alabama during the month of March, 1929, the Bureau of Public Roads, upon request, made an investigation to determine the damages which resulted to roads and bridges on the Alabama system of Federal aid highways. Based upon data obtained by this investigation, there was made an estimate of the cost of restoration or reconstruction work necessary, as follows: 1. Restoration of roadway aid projects on Federal aid system within flooded area to same type.-

$560, 000 2. Restoration of bridges on Federal aid projects on Federal aid

system within flooded area and provision for additional openings. 535, 000 3. Estimated restoration of roadway of non-Federal aid projects on Federal aid system within flooded area to same type..

460, 000 4. Estimated restoration of bridges on non-Federal aid projects on Federal aid system within flooded area and additional openings--

580, 000 5. Estimated 40 miles of original type destroyed requiring restoration to higher type, at $25,000 per mile----

1, 000, 000 Total....

3, 135, 000 Item 5 immediately above has reference to sections of highways upon which the original type was obliterated and where traffic will justify an increased cost. Such sections are relatively short, varying from about 50 to possibly 3,000 feet in length, and probably aggregating 27 miles of Federal-aid projects on the Federal-aid system and 13 miles of non-Federal-aid projects on said system. The greater degree of destruction wrought on these sections was due to the waters cutting into fills adjacent to bridges and culverts, and to other similar reasons.

The foregoing estimates do not include any damage which occurred on other than the Federal-aid highway system. Neither do they include any damage which occurred outside of the area of extraordinary flood. It was found that the flood crests rose from 4 to 16 feet above previous records. Great damage was undoubtedly suffered and it would seem beyond question that it was caused by extraordinary flood conditions. It is believed, however, that any relief provided by the Federal Government should be confined upon the roads embraced in the system of Federal-aid highways. The language of the bill as it passed the Senate apparently would not confine reimbursement for work already done to restoration or reconstruction work performed on the system of Federal-aid highways. It is suggested, therefore, that if it is the intention of Congress that the entire appropriation which the bill would authorize shall be confined to roads and bridges on the system of Federal-aid highways, whether paid as reimbursement for work already done or expended in future construction the language of the bill should be changed so as to clearly indicate such intent. Otherwise the department would recommend favorable action on the bill.

When this bill was pending in the Committee on Post Offices and Post Roads of the Senate, this department was requested to make a report thereon and at that time submitted a copy of the bill to the Bureau of the Budget pursuant to Circular No. 49 of that bureau. By letter dated January 6, 1930, the Director of the Bureau of the Budget advised this department that the expenditures contemplated by this proposed legislation would not be in conflict with the financial program of the President. Sincerely,

R. W. DUNLAP, Acting Secretary of Agriculture. O

FALSE REPORTS AS TO CONDITION OF NATIONAL AND

STATE MEMBER BANKS, ETC.

FEBRUARY 19, 1930.-Referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be printed

Mr. McFadden, from the Committee on Banking and Currency,

submitted the following

REPORT

[To accompany H. R. 9683]

[ocr errors]

which
of such bank,”.

The Committee on Banking and Currency, to whom was referred the bill (H. R. 9683) to amend section 22 of the Federal reserve act, having considered the same, report favorably thereon with the recommendation that the bill do pass with the following amendments:

Page 1, line 5, after the word “maliciously,” strike out “or”. Page 1, line 10, after the word “which ", strike out the words “may tend” and insert the word “tends”. Page 2, line 1, after the word “bank,” strike out the words “or may

otherwise injure, or tend to injure the business or good will Page 2, line 5, after the word “than”, strike out $5,000” and insert "$1,000". Page 2, line 6, strike out “five years” and insert "one year".

Page 2, line 8, after the word "provision,” strike out the words "or to boycott, or to blacklist,”

Page 2, line 9, after the word “from,” strike out the words “or to cause a withdrawal of patronage from, or otherwise to injure the

or good will of". Page 2, line 16, after the word "than", strike out "$5,000” and Page 2, line 17, after the word "than”, strike out "five years” and

one year”. The legislation proposed in this bill has been indorsed by the Treasury Department, the Federal Reserve Board, the American States. It is intended to provide a means to punish the malicious individual who goes about the country and circulates false stories concerning some particular national bank or State member bank of

business

insert “$1,000”.

insert

the Federal Reserve System. There are a number of such instances reported from time to time, and while bank slander bills have been passed in a majority of the States, any one State law does not reach into another State, so that a man who may be in California and maliciously publishes or circulates information derogatory, for instance, to a bank in St. Louis, the State law of Missouri can not reach this man, nor can any law effective in California assume any jurisdiction.

This legislation is undoubtedly needed, as much injury is being done by such slanderers to national and State member banks.

In conformity with section 2a, of Rule XIII, of the House Rules, there is herewith printed section 22 of the Federal reserve act, with the proposed added amendment (subsections (g) and (h) thereto) printed in italics, as follows:

Sec. 22. (a) No member bank and no officer, director, or employee thereof, shall hereafter make any loan or grant any gratuity to any bank examiner. Any bank officer, director, or employee violating this provision shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor and shall be imprisoned not exceeding one year, or fined not more than $5,000, or both, and may be fined a further sum equal to the money so loaned or gratuity given.

Any examiner or assistant examiner who shall accept a loan or gratuity from any bank examined by him, or from an officer, director, or employee thereof, or who shall steal, or unlawfully take, or unlawfully conceal any money, note, draft, bond, or security or any other property of value in the possession of any member bank or from any safe-deposit box in or adjacent to the premises of such bank, shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor, and shall, upon conviction thereof in any district court of the United States, be imprisoned for not exceeding one year, or fined not more than $5,000, or both, and may be fined a further sum equal to the money so loaned, gratuity given, or property stolen, and shall forever thereafter be disqualified from holding office as a national bank examiner.

(b) No national bank examiner shall perform any other service for compensation while holding such office for any bank or officer, director, or employee thereof.

No examiner, public or private, shall disclose the names of borrowers or the collateral for loans of a member bank to other than the proper officers of such bank without first having obtained the express permission in writing from the Comptroller of the Currency, or from the board of directors of such bank, except when ordered to do so by a court of competent jurisdiction, or by direction of the Congress of the United States, or of either House thereof, or any committee of Congress, or of either House duly authorized. Any bank examiner violating the provisions of this subsection shall be imprisoned not more than one year or fined not more than $5,000, or both.

(c) Except as herein provided, any officer, director, employee, or attorney of & member bank who stipulates for or receives or consents or agrees to receive any fee, commission, gift, or thing of value from any person, firm, or corporation, for procuring or endeavoring to procure for such person, firm, or corporation, or for any other person, firm, or corporation, any loan from or the purchase or discount of any paper, note, draft, check, or bill of exchange by such member bank shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor and shall be imprisoned not more than one year or fined not more then $5,000, or both.

(d) Any member bank may contract for, or purchase from, any of its directors or from any firm of which any of its directors is a member, any securities or other property, when (and not otherwise) such purchase is made in the regular course of business upon terms not less favorable to the bank than those offered to others, or when such purchase is authorized by a majority of the board of directors not interested in the sale of such securities or property, such authority to be evidenced by the affirmative vote or written assent of such directors: Provided, however, That when any director, or firm of which any director is a member. acting for or on behalf of others, sells securities or other property to a member bank, the Federal Reserve Board by regulation may, in any or all cases, require a full disclosure to be made, on forms to be prescribed by it, of all commissions or other considerations received, and whenever such director or firm, acting in his

« ÎnapoiContinuați »