BRIDGE ACROSS DELAWARE RIVER, BETWEEN PHILADELPHIA, PA., AND CAMDEN, N. J.

JANUARY 18 (calendar day, JANUARY 21), 1921.-Ordered to be printed.

Mr. EDGE, from the Committee on Commerce, submitted the

following REPORT.

[To accompany S. 4787.]

The Committee on Commerce, to whom was referred the bill (S. 4787) granting consent for the construction, maintenance, and operation of a bridge across the Delaware River from the city of Philadelphia, Pa., to the city of Camden, N. J., and also to consent to an agreement between the States of Pennsylvania and New Jersey and the city of Philadelphia for the construction, maintenance, and operation of such bridge, having considered the same, report favorably thereon with the recommendation that the bill do pass with the following amendments:

On page 2, strike out all of sections 2 and 3.

On page 2, line 3, strike out the figures "3, 1899" and insert in lieu thereof "23, 1906."

On page 2, in line 20, change the numbering of section 4 to 2. Amend the title by inserting a period after the word "Jersey, at the end of the third line, and by striking out all thereafter.

The bill thus amended has the approval of the War Department, as will appear by the annexed communication, the amendment referred to therein having been incorporated in the bill as reported.

WAR DEPARTMENT, Washington, January 20, 1921.

Hon. W. L. JONES,

Chairman Committee on Commerce,

United States Senate.

Subject: Report on S. 4787, Sixty-sixth Congress, third session, to authorize the construction of a bridge across the Delaware River between Philadelphia, Pa., and Camden, N. J.

SIR: I have the honor to reply to your letter of the 6th instant requesting the views of this department on Senate bill 4787, to authorize the construction, maintenance, and operation of a bridge across the Delaware River from the city of Philadelphia, Pa., to the city of Camden, N. J.

The building of a bridge across the Delaware River between Philadelphia and Camden, two very populous centers, is a project of great local concern which has had recurrent consideration for a number of years. That portion of the river between the two streets named in the bill comprises an important section of the harbor of Philadelphia. A bridge within the limits of the harbor can not be entirely free from objections, but the objections are not insuperable. It is believed to be practicable to build a bridge of such type, and with such height and length of span, that it will not unreasonably interfere with the use of the waterway by any class of vessels, and under the provisions of the general bridge act of March 23, 1906, such a structure

may be required by the department. I see no objection, therefore, to the construction of the bridge being authorized by Congress as proposed. In this connection it is deemed proper to inclose, without comment, for the information of the committee, a copy of a letter addressed to this department by the Acting Secretary of the Navy under date of March 17, 1919.

Sections 2 and 3 of the bill seem open to objection, as well as unnecessary, and it is suggested that they be eliminated. The full consent of Congress is given in section I for the construction, maintenance, and operation of the bridge by a joint commission to be constituted by the States of Pennsylvania and New Jersey and the city of Philadelphia. The grant is obviously to the two States and the city, and this consent is broad enough to embrace any lawful agreement between them which may be necessary to effect the purposes of the grant. This is all that is required, unless the proponents of the measure have in mind some other or different compact, in which case it would be wise for Congress to defer granting consent until its nature is fully developed. In other words, the consent should follow rather than precede the compact.

Very respectfully,

From: Secretary of the Navy.
To: Secretary of War.

NEWTON D. BAKER,
Secretary of War.

NAVY DEPARTMENT,
Washington, March 17, 1919.

Subject: Proposed construction of bridge between Philadelphia and Camden, over Delaware River.

On December 10, 1918, the Navy Department was informed by the Board of Trade of Philadelphia that it was considering the subject of the proposed bridging of the Delaware River between Philadelphia and Camden, the shore end on the Philadelphia side being practically opposite Walnut Street.

There has been correspondence on this subject between the Navy Department and the Board of Trade of Philadelphia, wherein it was pointed out that this department could not look with favor upon this project for the reasons set forth in its letter of December 16, 1918, from which the following extract gives the reasons for this point of view:

"The experience of the Navy Department with the Brooklyn Bridge has been that this bridge is a serious military handicap and that no bridges similar to this one should be permitted at a port where there are any naval activities.

66

Accordingly the Navy Department is opposed to the construction of a bridge between Philadelphia and Camden. Above the proposed location of this bridge is the Cramps Ship Yard, and vessels going to and from this place would be seriously inconvenienced by such a bridge.

"It is obvious to the board of trade that such a bridge is always a menace to navigation by reason of the ability of the enemy to obstruct the channel by blowing it up. "From a purely commercial point of view the board of trade is advised that such a bridge would be undesirable, as most merchant ships are constructed with masts so high that they could not possibly pass under such a bridge.

"In the case of the Brooklyn Bridge the U. S. S. Leviathan can not go to the navy yard, New York, on account of the height of the smokestack. When the navy yard, New York, was called upon to fit out a large number of transports it became necessary to burn off the masts of nearly every one of these vessels in order to get them under the Brooklyn Bridge to the navy yard.

"Furthermore, it is quite probable that in the future there will be a deep inland waterway between the Upper Delaware and New York Bay, in which case such a bridge would be all the more undesirable."

The Navy Department is in receipt of a letter dated March 11, 1919, from the Philadelphia Board of Trade, indicating that this project is to be undertaken in spite of this department's objections, and further states that the attorney generals' departments of Pennsylvania and New Jersey have prepared legislation looking toward this end which will be submitted to the New Jersey Legislature on Tuesday next, March 18, and that upon the passage of the New Jersey act it will be introduced in the Pennsylvania Legislature.

This department is strongly of the opinion that the bridging of the Delaware River is very undesirable and trusts that the War Department will not look with favor upon this project, but will bend its efforts to prevent the same.

An expression of the War Department's views on this subject will be appreciated.

O

F. D. ROOSEVELT,
Acting Secretary.

JANUARY 18 (calendar day, JANUARY 22), 1921.—Ordered to be printed.

Mr. WADSWORTH, from the Committee on Military Affairs, submitted the following

REPORT.

[To accompany S. 4889.]

The Committee on Military Affairs, to whom was referred the bill (S. 4889) authorizing the Secretary of War to furnish free transportation and subsistence from Europe to the United States for certain destitute discharged soldiers and their wives and children, having considered the same, report favorably thereon with the recommendation that the bill do pass with an amendment.

At the end of the bill insert the following:

Provided further, That the authority conferred by this act shall cease and determine six months after the approval thereof.

It seems that what is really a distressing situation has arisen among men who served in the Army during the war and who, in conformity with law, were discharged in Europe. The Secretary of War, in a letter addressed to the chairman of the committee under date of January 18, describes the advisability of this legislation and recommends its passage. In that letter, after setting forth the text of the bill, the Secretary says:

This bill provides, as will be noted, for furnishing destitute former soldiers and their families, who are now in Europe, with free transportation to ports of embarkation in Europe, and from Europe to the United States on Army transports, together with subsistence en route. During the demobilization of the Army, a number of soldiers in the American Expeditionary Forces requested discharge in Europe, and in those cases where good and sufficient reasons for making such requests were submitted, they were granted.

These soldiers were discharged upon condition that they waived any claim for sea-travel allowances from Europe to the United States, but they were paid travel allowances from the station of discharge to the port of embarkation and from Hoboken, N. J., to the place of entry into the service.

I am now advised that many of these former soldiers have become destitute in Europe and are applying to welfare associations for relief. In view of the reflection cast upon the Army, as well as upon the United States Government, by their presence S R-66-3-vol 1————6

in Europe in a destitute condition, and the further fact that their destitution is probably due to the unsettled conditions over which they have no control, although no legal obligation devolves upon the Government to return them, I do not think we should be exacting in the matter, and am willing to waive their waiver of sea travel allowances and furnish them transportation home.

However, since these soldiers have already been paid travel allowances for land travel, the War Department is without authority to furnish any transportation except for sea voyage, and as many of these soldiers are not at ports of embarkation it is necessary to provide means to get then to such ports.

Another complicating feature of the situation is that some of these soldiers are married and have their families with them, and no authority exists for furnishing transportation or subsistence to the wives and children, even for the sea voyage. In such cases, I do not feel that any action should be taken that would separate the former soldier from his family, but believe they should be brought to the United States together.

In view of the conditions as set forth above, I earnestly request the enactment of this bill, and that among these bills now before the Congress this be one to be given preferential consideration.

о

66TH CONGRESS, 3d Session.

SENATE.

{No. 713.

REPORT

REDUCTION OF ARMY TO 175,000 MEN.

JANUARY 18 (calendar day, JANUARY 22), 1921.-Ordered to be printed.

Mr. WADSWORTH, from the Committee on Military Affairs, submitted the following

REPORT.

[To accompany H. J. Res. 440.]

The Committee on Military Affairs, to whom was referred the joint resolution (H. J. Res. 440) directing the Secretary of War to cease enlisting in the Regular Army of the United States, except in the case of those men who have already served one or more enlistments therein, having considered the same, report favorably thereon with the recommendation that the resolution do pass without amendment.

The Senate has already passed a resolution to accomplish this purpose. See Senate Report 676. The views of the House Military Committee are contained in House Report 1168.

O