Page images
PDF
EPUB

Buildings:

2, 000

Variation building of nonmagnetic construction, outside
dimensions 20 by 16 by 8 feet, and instrument piers. --- $2,000
Atmospheric-electric variation building, outside dimen-
sions 14 by 14 by 9 feet, with special pier arrangements
for mounting instruments__
Absolute magnetic and electric observatories, one with
outside dimensions 8 by 8 by 8 feet, and the other with
outside dimensions 7 by 7 by 8 feet, the first of non-
magnetic construction, including piers. -

(The buildings must be of special design to reduce
variation of temperature inside to a minimum.
Rammed-earth wall construction will be used
because it will be more economical.)

Transportation of instruments and materials not procur-
able locally..

Total....

1,000

800

$5, 800

30, 000

In consideration of this resolution, the committee heard the following witnesses, who related the benefits of this second polar year program to their respective departments:

John A. Fleming, department of research in terrestrial magnetism, Carnegie Institution of Washington.

N. H. Heck, chief of division of terrestrial magnetism and seismology, Coast and Geodetic Survey.

Dr. J. H. Dellinger, Bureau of Standards.

L. J. Briggs, assistant director for research and testing, Bureau of Standards.

A. H. Taylor, Naval Research Laboratory.

W. R. Gregg, United States Weather Bureau.

C. G. Abbot, Secretary Smithsonian Institution.

о

TO VALIDATE CERTAIN CONVEYANCES HERETOFORE MADE BY CENTRAL PACIFIC RAILWAY CO. AND ITS LESSEE, SOUTHERN PACIFIC RAILWAY CO.

FEBRUARY 5, 1932.-Committed to the Committee of the Whole House and ordered to be printed

Mr. SWING, from the Committee on the Public Lands, submitted the following

REPORT

[To accompany H. R. 406]

The Committee on the Public Lands, to whom was referred the bill (H. R. 406) to validate a certain conveyance heretofore made by Central Pacific Railway Co., a corporation, and its lessee, Southern Pacific Co., a corporation, to Pacific States Box & Basket Co., a corporation, involving certain portions of right of way in the vicinity of the town of Florin, county of Sacramento, Calif., acquired by the Central Pacific Railway Co., having considered the same, report favorably to the House and recommend that it do pass with the following amendment:

Page 2, line 6, insert the figures "380" following the word "page". The necessity for a confirmatory act validating the title to this property grows out of the fact that notwithstanding the railway company has never made use of more than 100 of its 400-foot right of way and a great many years ago sold this property to the predecessors of the Pacific States Box & Basket Co., and notwithstanding the property has been occupied without disturbance all these years in private ownership, taxes paid and title recognized, nevertheless the Supreme Court of California and of the United States has held that the railway company had not the power to alienate any part of its right of way, nor could title be acquired by adverse possession.

Accordingly it has been the practice, where the railway companies have deemed the property nonoperative under the circumstances here presented, to quitclaim the title and upon the support of such conveyance to make application to Congress for a validating act and it has been the practice to pass such acts. Precedents will be found at the seventieth session and I refer to chapter 426, volume 45,

United States Statutes at Large, page 1428, where an act will be found adopted March 1, 1929, confirming and validating some 42 such conveyances.

The report of the Secretary of the Interior is as follows:

Hon. JOHN M. EVANS,

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR,
Washington, January 25, 1932.

Chairman Committee on the Public Lands, House of Representatives.

MY DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: In response to your request of January 11 for a report on H. R. 406, there is transmitted herewith a memorandum on the subject that has been submitted by the Commissioner of the General Land Office, in whose views I concur.

Very truly yours,

RAY LYMAN WILBUR, Secretary.

Memorandum for the Secretary.

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR,

GENERAL LAND OFFICE, Washington, January 30, 1931.

On December 26, 1930, I forwarded you a memorandum on H. R. No. 14456, which proposes to validate a conveyance executed by the Central Pacific Railway Co., and its lessee, the Southern Pacific Co., to Pacific States Box & Basket Co. You made report on the resolution to the chairman Committee on the Public Lands, House of Representatives, on January 3, 1931. Inclosed herewith is letter of January 15, 1931, of Chapman & Chapman, attorneys at law, 1322 Security Title Insurance Building, Los Angeles, Calif., representing the Pacific States Box & Basket Co. Also inclosed is a copy of what is called a chain of title report as to the tracts of land referred to in the bill made by the Fidelity Title Insurance Co. dated February 5, 1930, a diagram showing the location of the land, and the original deed from the Weston Basket & Barrel Co. to the Pacific States Box & Basket Co. for this land executed on December 3, 1927, forwarded with the letter of Messrs. Chapman & Chapman. Inclosed are photostat copies of the above papers.

With the description of the land afforded by the described papers, an examination of the records of this office has been made. SE. 4 sec. 35, T. 8 N., R. 5 E., Mount Diablo meridian, was patented to the Central Pacific Railroad Co. on December 19, 1866, pursuant to the grant by the acts of July 1, 1862 (12 Stat. 489), and July 2, 1864 (13 Stat. 356), office clear list No. 2, approved on November 18, 1866. The records here show that on September 1, 1869, the President of the United States accepted the map of constructed road filed by the Western Pacific Railroad Co. as to the line of road in the vicinity of said SE. % sec. 35. The Western Pacific Railroad Co. was for a time owner of this portion of the land grant. The map of constructed road referred to agrees in general with the diagram forwarded by Messrs. Chapman & Chapman and shows the line of road passed through SE. 1⁄4 said sec. 35 in about the way it is referred to as passing in the diagram and other papers. I am forwarding this supplemental memorandum and now state that this office has no objection to the passage of the proposed bill.

Attached hereto are copies of the letter of January 15, 1931, from Messrs. Chapman & Chapman, the chain of title report, and the diagram referred to in the above-quoted memorandum of December 26, 1930. Copy of the deed mentioned in the memorandum can not be furnished, since it was returned to Messrs. Chapman & Chapman by your letter of January 21, 1931. Copy of the deed, however, should be in the House file on H. R. No. 14456, Seventy-first Congress, third session. C. C. Moore, Commissioner.

O

RESPECTING THE QUALIFICATIONS OF THE ASSESSOR OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA TO TESTIFY IN CONDEMNATION PROCEEDINGS

FEBRUARY 5, 1932.-Referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be printed

Mr. PALMISANO, from the Committee on the District of Columbia, submitted the following

REPORT

[To accompany S. 9]

The Committee on the District of Columbia, to whom was referred the bill (S. 9) respecting the qualifications of the assessor of the District of Columbia to testify in condemnation proceedings, having considered the same, reports favorably thereon, with the recommendation that the bill do pass.

This bill passed the Senate on January 7, 1932, and a copy of the report of the Senate Committee on the District of Columbia, which fully explains the object of the proposed legislation, is hereto appended and made a part of this report.

[Senate Report No. 50, Seventy-second Congress, first session]

The object of this bill is clearly stated in the title. The necessity for legislation arises through the fact that the District Court of Appeals, in a recent action for condemnation of land for public use, held the assessor disqualified as an expert witness on land values because of his connection with the District government.

The commissioner's letter, appended hereto as part of this report, discusses in detail the objections of the court and the views of the District government.

In discussing this bill the committee received statements from the corporation counsel of the District, Mr. W. W. Bride, and the District assessor, Mr. William P. Richards. No objection to enactment of this bill is known to the committee. COMMISSIONERS OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, Washington, December 10, 1931.

Hon. ARTHUR Capper,

Chairman Committee on the District of Columbia,

United States Senate, Washington, D. C.

SIR: The Commissioners of the District of Columbia have the honor to inclose herewith draft of a bill entitled "A bill to authorize the assessor of the District of Columbia to testify in condemnation proceedings," and to request its introduction and enactment.

In the exercise of the power of eminent domain it is essential for the District of Columbia to have available, for the purpose of testifying as to values of land sought to be condemned, competent real-estate experts. In the majority of condemnation cases the District secures the services of two expert witnesses, but there are cases where three are required. Frequently in past years the assessor of the District has been called upon to testify and in every instance he was qualified as a real-estate expert and presented to condemnation jurors opinion evidence as to values.

In the case of Johnson & Wimsatt (Inc.) v. Luther H. Reichelderfer, Herbert B. Crosby, and John C. Gotwals, the Commissioners of the District of Columbia, the Court of Appeals of the District of Columbia considered the competency of the assessor as a witness in these condemnation cases, and after referring to the long-recognized doctrine and the usual instructions based thereon, that condemnation jurors are to give no consideration to tax assessments, stated as follows:

"The foregoing instructions, or the substance thereof, has long been used in such cases in this jurisdiction, as in many others, and while the assessor's testimony may differ from the assessor's assessments, it seems wholly impracticable to preserve the landowner's fundamental right of cross-examining him as a witness without violating the instruction of the judge to the jury.

"For if his testimony agrees with the assessment, then the jury is indirectly considering the assessment, and becoming informed in respect of the assessment. "While if his testimony differes from the assessment, the difference can not be brought out on cross-examination without considering the assessment, and without informing the jury in respect to the assessment.

* *

*

"In view of the widespread and growing distrust of expert witnesses in our courts, we can not view with approval the practice of calling a salaried officer of the District of Columbia to give opinion evidence in a cause where the District is a party litigant, and especially where the assessor of taxes testifies to a jury made up exclusively of the payers of taxes.

"For these reasons we are of opinion that it was error to receive the assessor's testimony in this case, though, of course, we do not mean to intimate any criticism of the assessor, whom we have long recognized as an industrious and efficient public servant.

[ocr errors]

It would appear that there is hardly anyone in a better position to know the actual value of real estate in the District of Columbia than the tax assessor, who is constantly dealing with real estate throughout the entire District and who is also ex officio chairman of the Board of Equalization and Review, consisting of the assessor and the six assistant assessors. (District of Columbia Code, title 20, secs. 694-702.)

It is widely recognized that appraisements by tax assessors for purposes of taxation are not admissible in evidence in condemnation proceedings, but, when the assessor is called upon to testify, his testimony is not based on tax assessments. He is called upon to give opinion evidence as to values regardless of tax assessments and as a real-estate expert. The fees of expert witnesses are fixed by the court, and although every effort is made to keep them within bounds they nevertheless add materially to our judicial expenses. The use of the tax assessor as a witness may result in the saving of quite a substantial amount in witness fees. Very truly yours, L. H. REICHElderfer, President Board of Commissioners of the District of Columina.

« PreviousContinue »