67TH CONGRESS, Session. SENATE. REPORT {No. 372. LEASE OF FLOATING DRY DOCK AT NEW ORLEANS, LA. DECEMBER 21, 1921.-Ordered to be printed. Mr. PAGE, from the Committee on Naval Affairs, submitted the following REPORT. [To accompany S. 2718.] The Committee on Naval Affairs, to whom was referred the bill (S. 2718) to provide for leasing of the floating dry dock at the naval station, New Orleans, La., having considered the same, report favorably thereon with the recommendation that the bill do pass without amendment. The attached letter from the Secretary of the Navy explains the reasons for this legislation, and is made a part of this report. THE SECRETARY OF THE NAVY, Washington, November 8, 1921. Hon. CARROLL S. PAGE, Chairman Committee on Naval Affairs, United States Senate. MY DEAR SENATOR: There is inclosed herewith a proposed draft of a bill to authorize the Secretary of the Navy, when in his discretion it will be for the public good, to lease the floating dry dock at the naval station, New Orleans, La. A similar provision was carried in the act of August 29, 1916 (39 Stat., 559), for "lease of naval lands," whereby the Secretary of the Navy was authorized to lease "such property of the United States under his control as may not for the time being be required for public use. * * The Attorney General in his opinion of December 8, 1918, held that under the foregoing provision of law, the Secretary of the Navy is authorized to lease naval lands, together with personal property constituting a part of the plant or plants in existence upon such real property, but has no authority to lease other personal property. The floating dry dock in question seems to come under the designation of "other personal property," as used by the Attorney General, and therefore there is no authority of law to enter into such a lease. Due to the suspension of activities at the naval station, New Orleans, La., it is deemed to be advantageous to the Government to lease the floating dry dock at that station when it is not needed by the Navy, such lease to contain a proviso for the return of the dry dock to the Navy upon demand. It is recommended that the proposed legislation submitted in the inclosed draft of bill be enacted at an early date. Sincerely, yours, O EDWIN DENBY, Mr. BALL, from the Committee on the District of Columbia, submitted the following REPORT. [To accompany H. R. 6380.] The Committee on the District of Columbia, to which was referred the bill (H. R. 6380) to amend an act entitled "An act to incorporate the Masonic Mutual Relief Association of the District of Columbia," approved March 3, 1869, as amended, having considered the same, report favorably thereon with the recommendation that the bill do pass without amendment. The Masonic Mutual Relief Association was created by an act of Congress approved March 3, 1869, and has carried on a relief and insurance business under the terms of its charter from that time until the present. The association is limited by its charter to master Masons and now has a license and is doing business in 37 States of the Union. The association now has a membership of approximately 40,000 and is in a prosperous condition. It is a mutual association, and all the earnings above the expenses of operation are placed to the credit of its members. The original charter has been amended six times by Congress, to wit, March 3, 1875; June 15, 1882; February 20, 1893; February 5, 1901; March 2, 1903; June 6, 1906; and May 30, 1908. These amendments have not in any way changed the original character of the association, but have been made from time to time to enable the association to render a better and more enlarged service to its members and to members of the Masonic fraternity, to which its activities are specifically limited. The changes in the charter provided in Senate bill 4400 of the Sixty-sixth Congress and the reasons why they are desired by the association are stated briefly, but very clearly, in the following letter from the president of the Masonic Mutual Life Association, Mr. William Montgomery, to Hon. Carl E. Mapes, chairman of the Committee on the District of Columbia, in the House of Representatives, when this bill was before the House of Representatives in January, 1921. Hon. C. E. MAPES, THE MASONIC MUTUAL LIFE ASSOCIATION OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, Washington, D. C., January 8, 1921. Chairman of the House Committee on the District of Columbia, United States Capital, Washington, D. C. MY DEAR MR. MAPES: Being informed by Senator Sherman's office that your committee is about to consider calendar bill No. 577, regarding an amendment to the charter of this association, I desire to briefly explain the proposed amendment. As I wrote Senator Sherman on May 21, last, I now desire to write you. This is the day of service, and the amendment enables the association to render a better and more enlarged service to its members and to the members of the Masonic fraternity, with whom it deals exclusively. This association is now licensed in 37 States as a fraternal beneficial association. While we may have the right, under our charter at present, to assist our members and their beneficiaries in case of sickness or other distress, one of the purposes of this amendment is to make it clear that the association has the power to give relief to its members and their families, both directly and by maintaining a hospital or sanitarium for the benefit of our members or those who might be eligible thereto, who might be afflicted with some possible curable disease and where they could receive proper treatment. You may perhaps know that most of the States of the Union have Masonic homes for the widows and orphans of members who were, through misfortune or otherwise, unable to provide a competency for them while in life, but there is nowhere in the United States to-day a home or hospital or sanitarium conducted by the fraternity where a diseased or incapacitated Mason may go for treatment and be nursed back to health and again become able to support his family and be a helpful member of the community. The association was organized in the period immediately after the Civil War, among the members of the fraternity to provide a fund for the benefit of the widows and orphans that would relieve the lodges from the frequent calls upon them for charity. As living conditions changed from time to time, the benefits granted by the association have been increased. The last amendment was passed by Congress in 1906, increasing the benefits at that time to $5,000. Under present-day conditions, this sum does not afford sufficient relief to the widows and orphans and it is impossible for the association to fulfill its mission among Masons without having this limitation removed. Protection for the families through life insurance has been so popularized by the stamp of approval put upon it by the Government during the war and by its tremendous benefits to those bereaved by the scourge of influenza that it is now generally understood that protection must be secured in a larger amount than the limit at present fixed in our charter, and we merely desire to supply to our members that added protection desired by them. At the present time the monthly income provided by the maximum amount of protection we can give to one member will not give for a period of 20 years exceeding $25 per month to the family, which, under present-day conditions, is entirely inadequate and insufficient. The amendment to section 3 makes it possible, if desired, to elect directors from all the grand lodges in the United States, which now are greater in number than when the charter originally was granted. In its present form, with the several amendments, the phraseology is in some respects unsatisfactory, making it difficult to decide what the exact meaning is. By changing the wording in a few cases and by eliminating repetition this condition has been corrected; for instance, the last part of section 5 was a repetition of section 2, but unfortunately in a different language. The bill is drafted in such a form that it can not affect adversely the rights of any of the present members or their beneficiaries, and the sections that are amended have been rewritten so that it will hereafter not be necessary to go back over all the several amendments to decide what the text of the section is. The association is and always has been limited to master Masons, and is conducted by Masons solely for the benefit of its members and their beneficiaries and not for profit, and this amendment does not change in any respect the fraternal and benevolent character and purpose of the institution. Sincerely thanking you for your courtesy in the matter. Respectfully, yours, EXTENSION OF TIME ON OIL AND GAS PERMITS. JANUARY 5, 1922.-Ordered to be printed. Mr. SMOOт, from the Committee on Public Lands and Surveys, submitted the following REPORT. [To accompany H. R. 8344.] The Committee on Public Lands and Surveys, to whom was referred the bill (H. R. 8344) to authorize the Secretary of the Interior to grant extensions of time under oil and gas permits, and for other purposes, having considered the same, report favorably thereon with the recommendation that the bill do pass without amendment. The purpose of this legislation is set forth in House Report No. 499, which reads as follows: [House Report No. 499, Sixty-seventh Congress, second session.] The Committee on the Public Lands, to whom was referred the bill (H. R. 8344) to authorize the Secretary of the Interior to grant extensions of time under oil and gas permits, and for other purposes, having considered the same, report it to the House with the recommendation that it do pass with the following minor amendment: On page 1, line 7, strike out the comma after the figures 1920, and insert in lieu thereof the following: "(Forty-first Statutes, page 437)" and a comma. The purpose of the bill is to give the Secretary of the Interior discretion to grant extension of time to oil and gas permittees to begin drilling operations or to drill wells to the required depth under the mineral land leasing act, approved February 25, 1920 (41 Stat., 437), in meritorious cases, such as climatic conditions, inability to secure machinery, and other reasons beyond the control of the permittee. The bill was introduced by the chairman of the Committee on the Public Lands at the request. of E. C. Finney, Acting Secretary of the Interior. The reasons why the legislation is deemed desirable and necessary in the opinion of the department is set out in a letter to the chairman of this committee dated August 18, 1921, which letter is set out in full for the information of the House, as well as a communication from John Barton Payne, Secretary of the Interior, to the Commissioner of the General Land Office, dated January 12, 1921, relative to extension of time for complying with conditions of oil and gas permits. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR, Hon. N. J. SINNOTT, Chairman Committee on the Public Lands, House of Representatives. MY DEAR MR. SINNOTT: Section 13 of the oil leasing act approved February 25, 1920, provides that permittees shall begin drilling within six months from date of permit; shall drill one or more wells to a depth of 500 feet within one year and to a depth of not less than 2,000 feet within two years. The statute further provides that the Secretary of the Interior may, if permittee has been unable with the exercise of diligence to test the land in the time granted by the permit, extend same for not exceeding two years. You will observe that there is no authority for granting extension of time within which to begin drilling or within which to sink wells to a depth of 500 feet the first year or 2,000 feet within two years. Approximately 11,000 applications for permits have been filed. A very large number have been approved. By reason of climatic conditions, inability to secure drilling rigs and machinery, or other reasons beyond the control of the permittee many of them have been unable to begin drilling within the six months' period and will be unable to get wells down 500 feet in depth within one year. Recognizing the condition confronting the department, and as a result of numerous petitions filed, the Secretary, on January 12, 1921, while holding as I have already indicated, stated that this department would not proceed against any such permit because of failure to begin drilling within six months if such failure was due to causes beyond the applicant's control, provided he did begin as soon thereafter as possible and furnished proof of work performed at the expiration of the year. Some of the permittees, while proceeding in the utmost good faith, will be unable to furnish proof of drilling 500 feet within the first year. You will readily see that it will be physically impossible for all of them to secure enough drilling rigs, casing, etc., to comply with the law. Under these circumstances, it seems to me that we should have legislative authority, by act or resolution, which would give the Secretary discretion to grant extensions of time in meritorious cases. I therefore submit for your consideration and introduction, if it meets your approval, a draft of a bill conferring such authority. Sincerely, E. C. FINNEY, Acting Secretary. RELATIVE TO EXTENSION OF TIME FOR COMPLYING WITH CONDITIONS OF OIL AND GAS PERMIT. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR, The COMMISSIONER OF THE GENERAL LAND OFFICE. DEAR MR. COMMISSIONER: With your memorandum of January 8, 1921, you submitted applications for extensions of time within which to commence drilling under oil-prospecting permits issued pursuant to section 13 of the act of Congress approved February 25, 1920 (41 Stat., 437). The statute requires that the permittee shall begin drilling operations within six months from the date of the permit and shall within one year from and after the date of the permit drill one or more wells for oil or gas to a depth of not less than 500 feet each, unless valuable deposits of oil or gas shall be sooner discovered, and shall within two years from date of the permit drill for oil or gas to an aggregate depth of not less than 2,000 feet, unless valuable deposits of oil or gas shall be sooner discovered. The Secretary of the Interior may, if he shall find that the permittee has been unable with the exercise of diligence to test the land in the time granted by the permit, extend any such permit for such time not exceeding two years and upon such conditions as he shall prescribe. The language of the statute clearly implies, and paragraph 7 of the regula tions so construes, that the extension of time authorized may be granted to cover a period of not exceeding two years from and after the date of the expiration of the two years fixed in the permit "to test the land." Consequently, an extension at the end of six months would not be premature and not specifically authorized by statute. |