Page images

Also extracts from the statement of Hon. Charles P. Gillen, mayor of Newark, N. J., in the hearing:

The CHAIRMAN. You said you purchased milk at 7 cents; where was it delivered? Mr. GILLEN. Delivered at the creamery in the country.


[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

The CHAIRMAN. Is there any profiteering so far in that, or do you consider the price charged by the farmer fair and reasonable? Mr. GILLEN. I think at the present time that price could not be reduced very much.

Section 6 of the Clayton law is quoted as follows: Sec. 6. That the labor of a human being is not a commodity or article of commerce. Nothing contained in the antitrust laws shall be construed to forbid the existence and operation of labor, agricultural, or horticultural organization, instituted for the purposes of mutual help, and not having capital stock or conducted for profit, or to forbid or restrain individual members of such organizations from lawfully carrying out the legitimate objects thereof; nor shall such organizations, or the members thereof, be held or construed to be illegal combinations or conspiracies in restraint of trade, under the antitrust laws.

In view of the testimony before the committee, the apparent injustice done, the absence of any evidence showing profiteering by the farmers and the provision of the so-called Clayton law exempting collective bargaining of the product of labor or agriculture it is not deemed wise to subject the farmer to the inconvenience and expenses indicated by the witnesses, under Federal law.

Section 3 repeals section 8 of the food-control act which reads: That any person who willfully destroys any necessaries for the purpose of enhancing the price or restricting the supply thereof shall, upon conviction thereof, be fined not exceeding $5,000 or imprisoned for not more than two years, or both.

And section 9 which reads: That any person who conspires, combines, agrees, or arranges with any other person (a) to limit the facilities for transporting, producing, manufacturing, supplying, storing, or dealing in any necessaries; (b) to restrict the supply of any necessaries; (c) to restrict the distribution of any necessaries; (d) to prevent, limit, or lessen the manufacture or production of any necessaries in order to enhance the price thereof shall, upon conviction thereof, be fined not exceeding $10,000 or be imprisoned for not more than two years, or both.

As section 4 amended by this bill imposes a maximum fine of “not exceeding $5,000 or by imprisonment for not more than two years, or both” for the offenses defined in the same language in sections 8 and 9, their continuance would be not only superfluous but inconsistent in view of the fact that the maximum fine is fixed at $5,000, in one and $10,000 in the other instance. The proviso contains a saving clause to prevent inability to prosecute or continue prosecutions of offenses of under sections 8 and 9 committed prior to the passage of this bill.

[ocr errors]




AUGUST 22, 1919.-Committed to the Committee of the Whole House and ordered

to be printed.

Mr. VAILE, from the Committee on the Public Lands, submitted

the following


[To accompany H. R. 6410.)


The Committee on the Public Lands, to whom was referred the bill (H. R. 6410) authorizing the city of Boulder, Colo., to purchase certain public lands, having considered the same, report thereon with a recommendation that the bill do pass as amended.

This bill authorizes the city of Boulder, Boulder County, Colo., to purchase 400 acres of land in a compact body 11 miles in length by one-half mile in width, within the limits of the Colorado National Forest. The bill provides for the payment by the city of $1.25 per acre, exempts from its operation any lands covered by valid existing rights, or claims initiated in good faith under the laws of the United States, and contains the usual reservation of oil, coal, or other mineral deposits. By a committee amendment which will be offered to correct a clerical error (insertion of the word "not" after the word "shall” in line 14, page 2) the city must use the land only for the municipal purpose of water storage and supply of its water works, and the patent shall provide for the reversion of title to the Government upon failure to use the land for such municipal purpose.

This bill was submitted to the Secretary of the Interior, whose report follows:


Washington, July 25, 1919. Hon. N. J. SINNOTT, Chairman Committee on the Public Lands,

House of Representatives. MY DEAR MR. Sinnott: I am in receipt by your reference of June 23, 1919, for report on H. R. 6410, a bill "authorizing the city of Boulder, Colo., to purchase certain public lands," and in response thereto I have the honor to submit the following report:

The land embraced in the bill aggregating 400 acres was withdrawn by proclamation of March 2, 1907 (35 Stat., 2155), for the Medicine Bow National Forest.

The grant proposed by the bill to the city is for the "purposes of water storage and supply of its water works.". The bill also refers to the act of March 2, 1907 (34 Stat., 1223), which authorized this city to purchase 1,524.26 acres for its water supply,

and this bill appears to be an addition to the grant by said act.

It also appears from the records in the General Land Office that under the act of February 28, 1899 (30 Stat. 915), this city was donated 1,601.75 acres as a park and again under the act of August 22, 1912 (37 Stat. 325), the city purchased 1,200 acres for park purposes.

An obvious error occurs in line 14 on page 2 of the bill, which reads that said city shall have the right to sell or convey the land herein mentioned. The word "not" was evidently inadvertently omitted and should be inserted after the word “shall,” said line 14.

Inasmuch as the land is within a national forest I recommend that the bill be referred to the Secretary of Agriculture for a report. I find no objection to the bill when amended by the insertion of the word "not" above suggested if the Secretary of Agriculture has no objection to urge to the bill. Cordially, yours,

FRANKLIN K. LANE, Secretary. Pursuant to the suggestion of Secretary Lane, the bill was referred to the Secretary of Agriculture. The Secretary, while making no objection to the bill and approving its purpose and reciting that similar legislation has been approved in a number of cases, suggests that a general law be enacted under which the President on request from the proper municipal authorities would be authorized to withdraw from all forms of entry such national forest lands as in his judgment are essential to the adequate protection of a municipality's water supply," and transmits a draft of such a bill, which has been introduced by the chairman of the Committee on the Public Lands, under the nuinber II. R. 8580, and will be considered by the committee in the near future. The letter from the Acting Secretary is here recited in full, for the information of the House, in deference to a desire recently expressed on the floor that this should be done in similar cases.

JULY 16, 1919. Hon. N. J. SINNOTT, Chairman Committee on the Public Lands,

House of Representatives. DEAR MR. SIN NOTT: Receipt is acknowledged of your request for a report on the bill (H. R. 6410) “authorizing the city of Boulder, Colo., to purchase certain public lands."

The bill proposes that the city shall have the right to purchase, at a price of $1.25 per acre, 400 acres of land now within the boundaries of the Colorado National Forest, which are to be used for purposes of water storage and supply of the city's waterworks. A similar grant of 1,557 acres was made to the city by an act approved March 2, 1907 (34 Stat., 1223). The city is now changing its water-supply system, and as a result of the change ten 40-acre subdivisions, not included in the previous grant and not affecting the water supply under their old plans, will be crossed by the city's pipe line or fences, or will to some extent contribute to the water-supply system.

At the present time there are approximately 1,300 cities and towns which obtain their water supply from national forests. In all of these cases the municipalities are interested, of course, in seeing that every reasonable protection possible be given to the water supply in order that there may be no injury to the health of the citizens. To meet this desire the department has worked out a form of cooperative agreement which provides for a restricted use of the watershed under such conditions as meet the approval of the municipal health officers. This arrangement works very satisfactorily and enables the municipalities to secure substantially what they desire, and at the same time enables the department to carry out the purposes for which the national forests were created. The only real flaw in this arrangement is that there is no law to prevent prospecting and mining operations on city watersheds, the mineralland laws being applicable to such lands exactly as to all other lands in the national forests.

In recent years a number of acts for particular towns and cities have been passed, having to do in some form with a municipal water supply. In some cases, grants were desired for small tracts on which the main water works were to be constructed. In others, the cities sought extensive rights of way for such reservoirs and conduits as were needed. Examples of such right-of-way grants are those made to the cities of Los Angeles and San Francisco, Calif. A third class of laws authorizing cooperation are those which particularly have in view the protection of the watershed from which the water supply is secured. Examples of such laws are those for protecting the watersheds of the city of Colorado Springs and the town of Manitou, Colo. (act of Feb. 27, 1913; 37 Stat., 684), and Salt Lake City, Utah (act of Sept. 17, 1914; 38 Stat., 714) Each of these acts provide that the lands described therein shall be reserved from all forms of location or entry and set aside as a municipal water-supply reservation to be administered by this department in cooperation with the municipalities named, for the purpose of conserving the water supply and protecting it from pollution, as well as preserving the timber on the lands to accomplish more fully such purposes. In both cases, the title to the land remains in the Government and the land continues a part of the national forest, but is dedicated to the particular purpose of water supply protection.

These more recent acts indicate the progress of practical legislation and administration. Only the earlier acts passed title to the land from the Government to the municipality. In such cases, as is evidenced by the example of Boulder, the legislation is not adequate, since a change of plan of construction may at any time require the use or regulation of more or less land and the enactment of a remedial measure by Congress.

In view of the number of municipalities which obtain their water supply from the national forests, and the experience that the department has already had in entering into cooperative agreements looking to the protection of the watersheds, it is felt that the time is ripe for constructive watershed legislation which would make patchwork legislation of this kind unnecessary. It is therefore recommended that, instead of a special act in this case, to be inevitably followed by an increasing number of special bills to meet the individual requirements of each municipality, general legislation be enacted under which the President, on request from the proper municipal authorities, would be authorized to withdraw from all forms of entry such national forest lands as in his judgment are essential to the adequate protection of a municipality's water supply. Should legislation of such a character be enacted, there would be no difficulty in entering into cooperative agreements restricting the use of such areas in accordance with the views of the municipal authorities, while at the same time allowing the principal work of forestry to be carried on so far as proves to be consistent with the proper use of the land as a water-supply source. The expense of special sanitary patrol desired by municipalities should, it is felt, be borne by them, while the Forest Service would continue to do the work required for the protection and improvement of the forest. This could be controlled by the terms of the cooperative agreement in each case.

The inclosed draft of bill is, therefore, recommended to your committee as a substitute for the measure which you have submitted for report. If, however, your committee considers desirable the passage of H. R. 6410, your attention is invited to the fact that the two clauses of the proviso commencing at line 13, page 2, seem to be contradictory in terms, the word “not” apparently having been omitted from line 14, after the word “shall." Very truly, yours,

CLARENCE OUSLEY, Acting Secretary.

[Inclosure with letter o Acting Secretary of Agriculture.) A BILL To authorize the reservation of lands needed for the protection of municipal water supply.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the President is hereby authorized, upon application by a municipality, to reserve and set aside from all forms of location, entry, or appropriation, under either the mineral or nonmineral land laws of the United States, any lands of the United States within the exterior boundaries of any national forest which, in his judgment, are essential for the protection of the water supply of such municipality, and such reservation shall remain in force until revoked by him or by act of Congress, said lands thereafter to be administered for watershed protection by the Secretary of Agriculture in cooperation with the municipality for whose benefit they

« PreviousContinue »