REPEALING SECTION 13 OF PUBLIC BUILDINGS ACT, APPROVED MARCH 2, 1907. JULY 10, 1912.-Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union and ordered to be printed. Mr. BURNETT, from the Committee on Public Buildings and Grounds, submitted the following REPORT. [To accompany S. 6688.] The Committee on Public Buildings and Grounds, to which was referred the bill (S. 6688) to repeal section 13 of the act approved March 2, 1907, entitled "An act amending an act entitled 'An act to increase the limit of cost of certain public buildings, to authorize the purchase of sites for public buildings, to authorize the erection and completion of public buildings, and for other purposes, "having considered the same, beg to report thereon, with the recommendation that the bill pass without amendment. This committee adopts as part of its report the following from the report of the Senate Committee on Public Buildings and Grounds on this bill: In the act making appropriations to provide for the expenses of the government of the District of Columbia for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1912, and for other purposes, approved March 2, 1911, the following provision is made: "Anacostia River Flats: Toward the reclamation and development of the Anacostia River and Flats, from the Anacostia Bridge northeast to the District line, to be expended under the supervision of the Chief of Engineers, United States Army, upon plans to be prepared under the direction of, and to be approved by, a board of engineers to consist of the Engineer Commissioner of the District of Columbia, the officer in charge of public buildings and grounds, and the engineer officer in charge of the improvement of the Potomac River; said sum to be available for the preparation of plans, the prosecution of the work, the employment of personal service, and for such other purposes as may in the judgment of said board be necessary to carry out the purposes of this appropriation, one hundred thousand dollars." The land affected by the proposed bill is necessary to any reclamation work which may be carried on under the provisions of the act above quoted, and in order that this land may be applied to a useful public purpose, the repeal of section 13 of the act of March 2, 1907, is essential, particularly in view of the fact "that the first place where work can be done without condemnation or acquisition of private land is along that portion of the river where these lands proposed to be deeded are located." Acting under the authority of the law which is proposed to be repealed, the Secretary of War in June, 1907, caused the land affected to be appraised, and the valuation was fixed at $21,001.13; but the "purchaser" contemplated by the act of 1907 declared this to be excessive and has declined to purchase the land lying south of the squares enumerated in that act. Under the authority of successive acts of Congress the Secretary of War conveyed to Mr. Sidney Bieber and his heirs and assigns all the right, title, and interest of the United States in square 1131 (act approved Mar. 19, 1904, 33 Stats., 143), and to the squares lying south of squares 1123, 1148, 1149, and part of square 1117 (act approved June 30, 1906, 34 Stats., 772, 787), for which the Government received $4,903. Under the act approved March 2, 1907, which it is now proposed to repeal, all the land lying south of the squares previously conveyed to Mr. Bieber and between them and the channel of the Anacostia River has been tied up for over five years, and so long as the law of 1907 is in force the adjoining land owned by the Government can be put to no useful public purpose without the possibility of the contemplated reclamation work being interfered with by the ownership of these adjacent lands by private parties. In the first session of the Sixtieth Congress the Committee on the District of Columbia recommended that section 13 of the act of March 2, 1907, be repealed, and in the report written by Senator Carter (Rept. No. 352) the legislation respecting this land is reviewed, and it is said: "That Congress could not have realized the true intent and purpose of the acts of 1904, 1906, and 1907 in so far as they related to this subject is made clear by reference to the previous and contemporaneous action by Congress with reference to the Anacostia River front" (p. 3). After referring to this legislation and appropriations made for the improvement of the Anacostia River, and pointing out the importance of this reclamation work and the value of the property affected thereby, the report continues: "It is title to this valuable property that Mr. Sidney Bieber has sought to acquire, first by piecemeal and finally by wholesale through section 13 of the act approved March 2, 1907, which section the bill herewith presented is intended to repeal. It is inconceivable that Congress, while thus making large appropriations for the improvement of Anacostia River and the adjacent tide flats and exhibiting solicitude for the acquisition of all interfering titles, should have intentionally directed the Secretary of War to convey to Mr. Sidney Bieber or anyone else substantially all its title to such tidelands. "The record of the debates in both Houses of Congress shows that the subject of such proposed conveyance was not considered or understood, but, on the contrary, it appears that the act of 1907 was intended merely to correct a number of errors in the legislation had at the last session. "It was alleged on the floor of the House that the bill made no appropriation and that · all changes provided for were within the limits of cost theretofore fixed. A Member having the bill in charge on the floor of the House, in reply to a question by Mr. Tawney, made this statement: There is not one dollar's worth of new construction, nor is there a foot of ground authorized, but in some cases it was necessary to transfer from the appropriation made for the building to the appropriation made for the site, because an additional small amount was necessary to procure the site which the people wanted.' "Nowhere was any suggestion made that the bill contained a section directing the Secretary of War to convey to a stranger the title of the United States to valuable tidelands in the District of Columbia then being improved at large expense to the Government." As will be seen from the report of the Chief of Engineers, United States Army, to the Secretary of War, under date of May 9, 1912, Mr. Bieber "has manifested no desire or intention to purchase the land since the price was fixed as aforesaid," and inasmuch as "its possession and ownership should be retained by the United States for use in connection" with the Anacostia reclamation work, the committee believes that the public interest will be promoted by the repeal of section 13 of the act approved March 2, 1907, and so recommends. This view is concurred in by the War Department, as shown by the following report: The SECRETARY OF WAR. WAR DEPARTMENT, OFFICE OF THE CHIEF OF ENGINEERS, SIR: I have the honor to return herewith a letter dated the 7th instant, from the Senate Committee on Public Buildings and Grounds, inclosing for the views of the War Department thereon S. 6688, Sixty-second Congress, second session, a bill to repeal section 13 of the act approved March 2, 1907, entitled "An act amending an act entitled 'An act to increase the limit of cost of certain public buildings, to authorize the purchase of sites for public buildings, to authorize the erection and completion of public buildings, and for other purposes." By section 13 of the aforesaid act the Secretary of War was authorized and directed to convey to the purchaser from the Government of certain squares of land in the District of Columbia "all the interest of the United States in the land lying south of the squares so purchased, and between them and the channel of the Anacostia River, upon the payment by such purchaser into the Treasury of the United States of such sum of money as the said Secretary of War, upon consideration of all the circumstances, shall determine proper to be paid for the said land; * * The "purchaser" specified in the act was Mr. Sidney Bieber, a citizen of the District of Columbia, who in due course mad application to the Secretary of War to fix the price to be paid by him for the premises authorized to be conveyed. Upon the receipt of the application the Secretary of War appointed a board consisting of three officers of the Corps of Engineers to investigate and determine the compensation to be exacted for the transfer of the Government's interest in the said property. This board, composed of the officer in charge of Public Buildings and Grounds, the officer in charge of the improvement of the Potomac and Anacostia Rivers, and the assistant to the Engineer Commissioner of the District of Columbia, held public sessions in the city of Washington, obtained the views of parties acquainted with real estate values in the District, and after thorough investigation reached the conclusion that the value of the interests of the United States in the said land was, in round numbers, $21,000. The Chief of Engineers, in submitting the report of the board to the Secretary of War, recommended that the prices fixed by the board be adopted as the prices to control in the sale. The beneficiary under the act, however, declined to purchase at these prices, claiming that by reason of the location and character of the land and the fact that a strip 66 feet wide extending through it was occupied by the Pennsylvania Railroad Co., the prices were in excess of its real value. No further action was taken by the department in the matter of the sale of the land, the status of which has remained unchanged. While title and possession are still in the United States, the law authorizing the sale of the land is yet in force, and it is believed that its repeal is desirable. The District of Columbia appropriation act approved March 2, 1911 (36 Stat. L., 1005), contains a provision making an appropriation toward the reclamation and development of the Anacostia River and flats, from the Anacostia Bridge to the District line, such appropriation to be expended under the supervision of the Chief of Engineers upon plans to be prepared, under his direction, by a board of engineers. The land in question is directly covered by any project or plan for reclamation that may be carried on under the foregoing provision of law, and its possession and ownership should be retained by the United States for use in connection with such project. Furthermore, the sale or disposal of property of this kind, which becomes more and more valuable for the purposes of the Government, is not in accord with sound public policy. Mr. Bieber has no vested rights in this land by virtue of the provisions of section 13 of the act of March 2, 1907, and so far as known to this department has manifested no desire or intention to purchase it since the price was fixed as aforesaid. As a further part of our report we beg to quote from the letter of Lieut. Col. W. C. Langfitt, United States Engineer Office, dated July 1, 1912, together with the letter to which he refers to the Hon. George Sutherland, chairman of the Committee on Public Buildings and Grounds of the United States Senate, as follows: WASHINGTON, D. C., July 1, 1912. The CHAIRMAN COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC BUILDINGS AND GROUNDS, House of Representatives, Washington, D. C. SIR: Referring to Senate bill 6688, which passed the Senate and which it is understood has been referred to your committee, I have the honor to inclose herewith a copy of a letter addressed to the corresponding committee of the Senate when the bill was under consideration by that committee. This letter will explain the situation and the necessity for the passage of the bill this session of Congress, if possible. Should the committee desire, I should be glad to appear before it at any time. Very respectfully, W. C. LANGFITT, Lieutenant Colonel, Corps of Engineers. WASHINGTON, D. C., May 8, 1912. Hon. GEO. SUTHERLAND, United States Senate. SIR: By virtue of the act of Congress approved March 19, 1904, the Secretary of War conveyed to Sidney Bieber, his heirs and assigns, United States land in the District of Columbia known as square No. 1131, and under act approved June 30, 1906, there were transferred to Sidney Bieber the squares south of 1123, 1148, 1149, and part of square 1117. For square 1131 the United States received $1,000, and for the land conveyed under the act of June 30, 1906, the sum of $3,903 was received. 2. Why Mr. Bieber was allowed to purchase these squares is not known to this office. 3. By section 13 of the public buildings act approved March 2, 1907, further lands were authorized to be deeded to Mr. Bieber under similar terms, as follows: "That the Secretary of War be, and he is hereby, authorized and directed to convey to the purchaser from the United States of square eleven hundred and thirty-one, and the south part of square eleven hundred and seventeen, and the squares south of squares eleven hundred and twenty-three, eleven hundred and forty-eight, and eleven hundred and forty-nine, in the city of Washington, all the interest of the United States in the land lying south of the squares so purchased and between them and the channel of the Anacostia River, upon the payment by such purchaser into the Treasury of the United States of such sum of money as the said Secretary of War, upon consideration of all circumstances, shall determine proper to be paid for the said land; and the surveyor of the District of Columbia is hereby authorized and directed to mark out such land and determine the areas and to record a plat thereof." 4. Under date of March 10, 1908, Mr. Carter, from the Committee on the District of Columbia, submitted a report, accompanied by a proposed act to repeal section 13 of the last mentioned act just quoted, and this bill passed the Senate on the same date, March 10, 1908. This bill, however, was not acted upon by the House, and has never passed that body, and as it was introduced in a previous Congress, new action is now required by both the Senate and House if this section 13 is to be repealed. In the "act making appropriations to provide for the expenses of the government of the District of Columbia for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1912, and for other purposes," approved March 2, 1911, the following provision is made: "Toward the reclamation and development of the Anacostia River and Flats, from the Anacostia Bridge northeast to the District line, to be expended under the supervision of the Chief of Engineers, United States Army, upon plans to be prepared under the direction of, and to be approved by, a board of engineers to consist of the Engineer Commissioner of the District of Columbia, the officer in charge of public buildings and grounds, and the engineer officer in charge of the improvement of the Potomac River; said sum to be available for the preparation of plans, the prosecution of the work, the employment of personal service, and for such other purposes as may in the judgment of said board be necessary to carry on the purposes of this appropriation, one hundred thousand dollars." The land proposed to be transferred to Mr. Bieber by this last act of March 2, 1907, is directly covered by any reclamation project which may be carried on under the provision of the District of Columbia act above quoted. It is understood that the transfer to Mr. Bieber has not been made, for various reasons, and it is believed that the repealing of the provision to transfer to him this land should be made at as early a date as practicable, in order that the work of reclamation may not be hindered by the ownership of these lands by private parties. This is especially important, as it appears to the board constituted by the District of Columbia act that the first place where work can be done without condemnation or acquisition of private lands is along the portion of the river where these lands proposed to be deeded to Mr. Bieber are located. 5. Attention is respectfully invited to the report of Mr. Carter above referred to, for the reasons governing the Senate Committee on the District of Columbia in its recommendation that this section 13 of 1907 be repealed. Attention is further invited to the remarks of Mr. Hugh T. Taggart, special counsel on the ownership of lands and riparian rights along the Anacostia River, as given in his second report, and published in Senate Document No. 17, Sixty-second Congress, first session, pages 33 to 38, inclusive, where the opinion is expressed that it is entirely competent for Congress not only to repeal this act of March 2, 1907, but also to repeal the former acts and return to Mr. Bieber the money paid by him to the United States. In addition, in an opinion from the Attorney General's Office, in response to an inquiry by this office, attention is called to this section 13 of March 2, 1907, in which it is stated that although nothing has yet been done under it, it would appear that until action is taken by Congress repealing it, Mr. Bieber could claim his rights under it, even though the United States had improved the property by reclamation, and that such possibility should be borne in mind before undertaking the work in that vicinity. 6. Therefore, at the present moment, what is specifically and especially desired is the repeal of section 13 of the public buildings act of March 2, 1907, and I inclose herewith a draft of a bill for that purpose, with the urgent request that it receive favorable consideration. 7. The Hon. J. H. Gallinger, chairman of the District of Columbia Committee of the Senate, has, or he will, introduce a bill, the draft of which is mentioned above, and copy herewith, and he states in his letter to me that this bill will be referred to your committee. Any action which your committee may be able to take to facilitate the passage of this bill will be very much appreciated. Very respectfully, W. C. LANGFITT, Lieutenant Colonel, Corps of Engineers. This correspondence, it seems to the committee, makes clear the necessity for the legislation proposed by this bill, and following the suggestions made by Col. Langfitt, a subcommittee of our committee has been appointed to investigate the question as to whether the former acts providing for the sale of other property to Mr. Bieber should not be repealed on repayment to him of the moneys paid by him to the United States. On this question the committee at this time makes no recommendation, but will await the action of the subcommittee which has been appointed to investigate the same. |