likewise developed to a remarkable degree, increasing from $3,500,000 a year to $1,800,000,000, with 80 American ships involved.

Trade routes are concentrated at Honolulu from South American ports, the Panama Canal, San Pedro, San Francisco, Portland, Seattle, and British Columbia. And from Honolulu they radiate to New Zealand, Australia, Samoa, Fiji, the Philippine Islands, China, and Japan.

The Hydrographic Office in the Navy Department carries about 4,000 charts referring to all the foreign ports of the world. At the hydrographic offices these charts must be kept corrected in order that they may be referred to by captains and navigators of the merchant vessels calling at the port. Last year alone, for instance, there were 4,000 rocks discovered that nobody had known anything about, and there were many other changes.

It is the function of the Hydrographic Office at ports of calls, such as this, to collect early information made available by ships during the course of their voyages, some of which ships do not carry radio, which information is thereafter transmitted by radio to Washington, and broadcast if necessary, as soon as received. The port offices invite visits from the seaman and navigator in order to check their charts and to avail themselves of the latest notices to mariners and sailing directions. Many ships, particularly those on charter, naturally do not carry a world supply of charts, they may have delivered a cargo at Honolulu and then receive orders to proceed to a part of the world whose charts they have not got. The Hydrographic Office is there to advise them as to charts necessary and sailing directions that may be required; and the office likewise sees to it that the agent for the sale of charts maintains a suitable stock which by comparison with the office charts may be corrected before sale to individual ships.

The committee feels that notwithstanding the unfavorable report of the department, which was due simply to the Budget's attitude, that the bill is necessary in order that this country may continue its aid and assistance in the development of the merchant marine.

The following letter from the Secretary of the Navy addressed to the chairman of the Committee on Naval Affairs sets forth the views and recommendations of the Navy Department, and is hereby made a part of this report:

The CHAIRMAN COMMITTEE ON NAVAL AFFAIRS,

NAVY DEPARTMENT, Washington, October 3, 1929.

House of Representatives, Washington, D. C.

MY DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: Replying further to the committee's letter of April 23, 1929, transmitting the bill (H. R. 1222) to establish a hydrographic office at Honolulu, Territory of Hawaii, and requesting the views and recommendations of the Navy Department thereon, I have the honor to advise you as follows:

The purpose of this bill is to authorize the Secretary of the Navy to establish a branch hydrographic office at Honolulu, Territory of Hawaii, and to appropriate $5,000 to provide, furnish, equip, and maintain such an office.

The bill carries $5,000 for the outfitting of this office, which is considered sufficient. In addition to this figure it would be necessary to employ one nautical expert at $1,680 per annum, which figure is considered the lowest at which a suitable person could be employed considering the cost of living at Honolulu. It is considered that a suitable office within convenient proximity to the shipping

interests could be obtained for $1,000 per annum or possibly somewhat less. However, the cost of employment of the nautical expert and the rental cost for office space are annual appropriation charges.

The bill H. R. 1222 was referred to the Bureau of the Budget with the above information. Under date of May 31, 1929, the Director of the Bureau of the Budget advised the Navy Department that the expenditure contemplated by this proposed legislation is not in accord with the financial program of the President. The bill H. R. 1222 is similar in language to the bill H. R. 8917 introduced in the Seventieth Congress.

In view of the foregoing, the Navy Department recommends against the enactment of the bill H. R. 1222.

Sincerely yours,

C. F. ADAMS, Secretary of the Navy.

O

MARCH 5, 1930.-Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union and ordered to be printed

Mr. UNDERHILL, from the Joint Commission on Airports, submitted the following

REPORT

The Joint Commission on Airports, created under authority of Public Resolution 106, Seventieth Congress, approved March 4, 1929, presents the following report:

Organizing at once upon the approval of the resolution, the commission immediately began its study of the problem in hand with the view of formulating recommendations to Congress for providing the National Capital and the District of Columbia with suitable airport facilities. The commission unanimously took the position that these facilities should be not only sufficient for present and anticipated needs so as to serve Washington's maximum aviation requirements, but should also ultimately be of an extent and completeness to reflect a creditable leadership on the part of the Capital in the development of this science. The commission readily recognized the prospective strategic importance of Washington as a focal point for far-flung air lines, and the board was keenly alive to the fact that as prompt action as possible on its part was essential in view of the phenomenally rapid growth of aviation and the desirability of putting the Nation's Capital on the airways map with the least possible delay by the establishment of an adequate commercial airport.

In its quest for expert opinion and advice bearing on its problem the commission not only consulted with officials of various governmental departments concerned, including the government of the District of Columbia, and the National Capital Park and Planning Commission, but proceeded in April, 1929, to conduct a series of public hearings which brought together a notable coterie of foremost airport engineers and aeronautical experts, and noted Government and air-mail flyers. Their testimony was embodied in a volume of nearly 200 pages constituting a valuable compendium of information on the subject of municipal airports.

Among the outstanding features of this evidence, stressed by substantially all of the experts, and emphasized particularly by Colonel

Lindbergh, was the fundamental principle that the relative success of an airport is dependent to a large extent upon its proximity to and accessibility from the center of the municipality which it serves. "One of the most important things in relation to the modern airport," said Colonel Lindbergh, "is its distance from the city. If it requires an hour or an hour and a half or more to go from the airport to Washington, and vice versa, that takes away to a large extent any advantage from flying from a city such as New York or Philadelphia to the Capital, inasmuch as the time required to go to and from the airport adds so much to the flying time that there is very little advantage over rail travel. I think distance from the city would

* *

be of primary importance."

The joint commission early found itself confronted with no inconsiderable undertaking in making a survey of suggested sites for an airport in the vicinity of the Capital. These sites numbered more than a score, many of them presenting advantages of one kind or another, but comparatively few of them obviously suited to the needs of the Capital, as measured by the various factors entering into the equation. These included distance from the civic and business center of the city, accessibility by highways and means of overland transportation, contour of ground, drainage, atmospheric conditions, prevailing wind directions, cost of land and probable expense of grading and development, etc. The commission addressed itself to this task earnestly and painstakingly with technical and engineering assistance, and studied the problem from all angles.

Out of the mass of information assembled from the statements of leading aviators and engineers and the studies conducted by the commission there emerged the conviction on the part of that body that the Capital City's airport needs embraced a comprehensive plan that would provide, in the final picture, a close-in landing field and port, as a loading and unloading terminal, and one or more auxiliary and larger ports somewhat further removed, where facilities for maintenance, services, overhauling, and storage could be had. With these requirements in mind, the range of possibilities was considerably narrowed.

Salient advantages for the speedy development of a municipal airport seemed to rest in property situated immediately to the southward of the Highway Bridge, on the Virginia side of the Potomac River, embracing two flying fields known as Washington Airport and Hoover Field. These are virtually adjoining tracts, being separated only by Military Road, a highway leading from the bridge terminus to Arlington and Alexandria. Adjacent to Hoover Field on the west is the Agricultural Department experimental farm, a considerable portion of whose land is reasonably level, while to the northward of the property bearing the President's name lies Columbia Island in the Potomac separated from the mainland by a narrow and shallow strip of water.

The acquirement of the two privately owned properties, when thrown together and augmented by a portion of the farm lands and a part of the island, both Government-owned, it was found by the commission would provide a tract of some 280 acres. Furthermore, it was learned that both the flying fields in question could be purchased from their owners on what appeared to be reasonable terms. It was recognized by the commission that these tracts were already