3d Session No. 2599 RELINQUISHMENTS, ETC., OF LANDS FOR BENEFIT OF NAVAJO INDIANS FEBRUARY 11, 1931.-Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union and ordered to be printed Mr. EVANS of Montana, from the Committee on Indian Affairs, submitted the following REPORT [To accompany H. R. 16005) The Committee on Indian Affairs, to whom was referred the bill (H. R. 16005) to permit relinquishments and reconveyances of privately owned land within certain counties in the State of Arizona to the United States for the benefit of the Navajo Indians, and for other purposes, having considered the same, report thereon with a recommendation that it do pass with the following amendments: On page 1, line 6, after the word "of", insert the word "such". On page 1, line 6, after the word "lands", insert "as in the opinion of the Secretary of the Interior are desirable for and should be reserved for the use and benefit of the Navajo Tribe of Indians". On page 2, line 7, after the word "unreserved", insert the word "nonmineral". The necessity for the enactment of this law is fully set forth in the report of the Secretary of the Interior and the memorandum of the Commissioner of Indian Affairs, which have been appended hereto and made a part of this report. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR, Hon. SCOTT LEAVITT, Chairman Committee on Indian Affairs, House of Representatives. MY DEAR MR. LEAVITT: In response to your inquiry of January 12 for an opinion on H. R. 16005, which is a bill to permit relinquishments and reconveyances of privately owned land within certain counties in the State of Arizona to the United States for the benefit of the Navajo Indians, and for other purposes, I transmit herewith a memorandum on the subject that has been submitted by Commissioner Rhoads, of the Office of Indian Affairs. After a review of the proposed measure, I recommend that the bill be amended as follows: Page 1, line 6, immediately after the word "of," insert the word "such"; and, immediately after the word "lands", insert "as in the opinion of the Secretary of the Interior are desirable for and should be reserved for the use and benefit of the Navajo Tribe of Indians". Page 2, line 7, immediately after the word "unreserved". insert the word "nonmineral". Otherwise I agree with Mr. Rhoads. RAY LYMAN WILBUR, Secretary. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR, Memorandum for the Secretary. This is in reference to the request of the House Committee on Indian Affairs. dated January 12, 1931, for report on H. R. 16005, a bill to permit relinquishments and reconveyances of privately owned land within certain counties in the State of Arizona to the United States for the benefit of the Navajo Indians, and for other purposes. This bill is identical with S. 5577, introduced January 5, 1931. The purpose of this proposed legislation is to overcome the disadvantages now existing of "checkerboard" control of lands by Indians and private landowners within three counties-Apache, Navajo, and Coconino-in Arizona, to the end that the holdings of the respective parties may be unified or consolidated. Its effect will be to round out the southern boundary of the Navajo Indian Reservation and add large areas to the reservation for the use of the tribe as a whole and at the same time allow private landowners to block out their holdings, thus proving beneficial to all concerned. This proposed legislation is similar to the act of March 3, 1921 (41 Stat. 1239), authorizing reconveyances and relinquishments to the Government of privately owned land, State school lands, valid homestead entries or other filings, including Indian allotment selections within any township of the public domain in San Juan, McKinley, and Valencia Counties, N. Mex., and which allows lieu selections of land on the public domain to be made by parties surrendering their lands thereunder. Section 2 of the bill provides that no further allotments of lands to Indians shall be made in the counties of Apache, Navajo, and Coconino, Ariz., and the counties of McKinley, San Juan, and Valencia, N. Mex., pending completion of the exchanges contemplated by the bill, and thereafter allotments to Indians in said counties shall be confined to lands within Indian reservations or to lands heretofore or hereafter acquired by the United States in said counties for the benefit of Indians generally. Considering that the Navajo Tribe, as a whole, stands to ultimately acquire large areas of land through this proposed legislation, and also under the New Mexico exchange act of March 3, 1921, supra, we are agreeable to discontinuing allotments to individual Indians on the public domain within the counties in question as provided for in the bill. By resolution passed by the Navajo County Board of Supervisors at their regular meeting held on December 1, 1930, the board advocated the introduction and enactment of legislation as is embodied in the bill. Accordingly, it is respectfully recommended that the bill be enacted. BRIDGE ACROSS SAN FRANCISCO BAY FEBRUARY 12, 1931.-Referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be printed Mr. LEA, from the Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce, submitted the following REPORT [To accompany S. 5825] The Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce, to whom was referred the bill (S. 5825) granting the consent of Congress to the State of California to construct, maintain, and operate a toll bridge across the Bay of San Francisco from the Rincon Hill district in San Francisco by way of Goat Island to Oakland, having considered and amended the same, report thereon with a recommendation that it do pass. Amend the bill as follows: Page 2, line 23, after the word "exceed" strike out the word "forty" and insert the word "thirty" in lieu thereof. Amend the title to read as follows: Granting the consent of Congress to the State of California to construct, maintain, and operate a bridge across the Bay of San Francisco from the Rincon Hill district in San Francisco by way of Goat Island to Oakland. The bill has the approval of the War, Navy, and Commerce Departments, as will appear by the letters attached, also approval of Agriculture Department, as shown by report on H. R. 16298, a similar bill. The CHAIRMAN COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE, NAVY DEPARTMENT, Washington, February 3, 1981. United States Senate, Washington, D. C. MY DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: Replying to the committee's letter of January 23, 1931, submitting the bill (S. 5825) granting the consent of Congress to the State of California to construct, maintain, and operate a toll bridge across the Bay of San Francisco from the Rincon Hill district in San Francisco by way of Goat Island to Oakland over the Key Route Mole, and requesting the views and recommendations of the Navy Department thereon, I have the honor to inform you as follows: The purpose of this bill is to authorize the construction, maintenance, and operation of a toll bridge across the Bay of San Francisco, as referred to in its title. In view of the fact that the site for this bridge does not violate any of the restrictions set forth by the War Department and its construction, maintenance, and operation would not be detrimental to deep water anchorage for naval craft or in any way interfere with the maneuvering of the fleet, the Navy Department offers no objection to the enactment of the proposed legislation. Sincerely yours, Hon. HIRAM W. JOHNSON, Chairman Committee on Commerce, C. F. ADAMS, Secretary of the Navy. WAR DEPARTMENT, Washington, D. C., February 4, 1931. United States Senate. DEAR SENATOR JOHNSON: Reference is made to bill (S. 5825), Seventy-first Congress, third session, "Granting the consent of Congress to the State of California to construct, maintain, and operate a toll bridge across the Bay of San Francisco from the Rincon Hill district in San Francisco by way of Goat Island to Oakland over the Key Route Mole." So far as the interests of navigation are concerned, there is no objection to the favorable consideration of this bill. J With regard to the effect of the bridge on the military reservation on Goat Island, it is noted that the bill provides that permission for the bridge to cross the Government reservation shall first be obtained from the Secretary of War, and if any buildings, improvements, or facilities on the reservation are damaged or destroyed by the construction of the bridge they will be repaired or replaced by the State of California on a site or sites acceptable to the Secretary of War. In view of these provisions, there is no military objection to the enactment of the bill in its present form. Sincerely yours, United States Senate, Washington, D. C. MY DEAR SENATOR: I have your letter of January 23, requesting a report from this department on S. 5825, entitled, “Granting the consent of Congress to the State of California to construct, maintain, and operate a toll bridge across the Bay of San Francisco from the Rincon Hill district in San Francisco by way of Goat Island to Oakland over the Key Route Mole." For the information of your committee, I am inclosing herewith a memorandum dated January 27, 1931, from the Commissioner of Lighthouses, regarding this bill. Very truly yours, Memorandum for the Secretary of Commerce. E. F. MORGAN, Acting Secretary of Commerce. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE, 1. Referring to request, dated January 23, 1931, from the Committee on Commerce of the United States Senate, for a report on S. 5825, "Granting the consent of Congress to the State of California to construct, maintain, and operate a toll bridge across the Bay of San Francisco from the Rincon Hill district in San Francisco Bay by way of Goat Island to Oakland over the Key Route Mole,' which provides among other things that permission for such bridge to cross the Government reservation at Goat Island shall first be obtained from the Secre taries of War, Navy, and Commerce: 2. The bureau, being informed that the bridge in question passes well north of the highest point of the island, and entirely clear of the lighthouse depot reservation thereon, makes no objection to the passage of the bill, the other provisions thereof being also acceptable. G. R. PUTNAM, Commissioner of Lighthouses. Hon. JAMES S. PARKER, DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, Chairman Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce, House of Representatives. DEAR MR. PARKER: Careful consideration has been given to the bill, H. R. 16298, transmitted with your letter of January 19, with request for a report thereon and such views relative thereto as the department might desire to communicate. This bill would authorize the State of California to construct, maintain, and operate a bridge and approaches thereto across the Bay of San Francisco, at or near the general site from Rincon Hill, in the city and county of San Francisco, to and across Goat Island, in San Francisco Bay, and thence to Oakland, county of Alameda, State of California. The authorization would be subject to permission for the bridge to cross the Government reservations on Goat Island being first obtained from the Secretaries of War, Navy, and Commerce, and also to the repair or replacement by the State of California on a site or sites acceptable to the heads of the departments of the Federal Government, respectively, having jurisdiction over any property or facilities on such Government reservations that may be damaged or destroyed. The authorization would contain provision for operating the bridge as a toll bridge until the proceeds of the tolls, after meeting reasonable maintenance, repair, and operation costs, shall provide a sinking fund sufficient to amortize the cost of the bridge and its approaches, but within a period of not to exceed twenty years from the completion of the bridge. After a sinking fund sufficient for such amortization shall have been provided, such bridge will be required to be maintained and operated as a free bridge or the rates of toll thereafter shall be so adjusted as to provide a fund not in excess of the amount necessary for the proper maintenance, repair, and operation of the bridge. This department has copies of reports on the proposed improvement which indicate that it would be entirely feasible and would provide a much-needed service to the public. The department concurs in this view. It, therefore, recommends favorable action on the bill. |