Resolved, etc., That the Director of Public Buildings and Public Parks of the National Capital be, and he hereby is, authorized and directed to select a suitable site and to grant permission to the president and fellows of Harvard College to erect, as a gift to the people of the United States, on public grounds of the United States in the city of Washington, D. C., a monument in memory of Maj. Gen. Artemas Ward commemorative of the services rendered by him to his country during the war of Independence: Provided, That the site chosen and the design of the memorial shall be approved by the Commission of Fine Arts, that it shall be erected under the supervision of the Director of Public Buildings and Public Parks of the National Capital, and that the United States shall be put to no expense in or by the erection of the monument.

The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the engrossment and third reading of the joint resolution.

The House joint resolution was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, was read the third time, and passed.

A motion to reconsider the last vote was laid on the table. MONUMENTAL URN PRESENTED BY THE REPUBLIC OF CUBA The next business on the Consent Calendar was House Joint Resolution 265, authorizing the President of the United States to accept a monumental urn to be presented by the Republic of Cuba and providing for its erection on an appropriate site on the public grounds in the city of Washington, D. C.

The Clerk read the title of the resolution.

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the present consideration of the resolution?

There was no objection.

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, a similar Senate joint resolution, No. 125, will be considered in lieu of the House joint resolution.

There was no objection.

The Clerk read the Senate joint resolution, as follows:

Resolved, etc., That the President of the United States is hereby authorized to accept as a gift from the Republic of Cuba, a monumental urn which shall be erected on a site on the public grounds of the United States in the city of Washington, D. C., other than those of the Capitol, the Library of Congress, the White House, or the grounds south of the White House: Provided, That the site shall be chosen by the Director of Public Buildings and Public Parks of the National Capital with the approval of the Joint Committee on the Library of Congress and the National Commission of Fine Arts: Provided further, That the urn shall be erected under the direction and supervision of the said Director of Public Buildings and Public Parks, and there is hereby authorized to be appropriated, out of any money in the Treasury of the United States not otherwise appropriated, a sufficient sum to cover the entire cost of the erection and dedication of the said urn.

The resolution was ordered to be read a third time, was read the third time, and passed.

A motion to reconsider the vote by which the resolution was passed was laid on the table.

A similar House joint resolution was laid on the table.

BRIDGE ACROSS THE RIO GRANDE RIVER

The next business on the Consent Calendar was the bill (H. R. 12031) to extend the times for commencing and completing the construction of a bridge across the Rio Grande River at or near Tornillo, Tex.

The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The SPEAKER pro tempore.

ent consideration of the bill?

Is there objection to the pres

Mr. LAGUARDIA. Mr. Speaker, reserving the right to object, may inquire of the gentleman from Texas whether he can give us the information we are now asking on these bridge bills?

Mr. JOHNSON of Texas. This is a bill introduced by my colleague [Mr. HUDSPETH], who is ill in the hospital. I am authorized to say that it is not a toll bridge but a free bridge. They were not able to construct the bridge within the time allotted and this is simply an extension of the time.

Mr. LAGUARDIA.

inquiry.

The gentleman has fully answered my

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection?
There was no objection.

The Clerk read the bill, as follows:

Be it enacted, etc., That the times for commencing and completing the construction of the bridge across the Rio Grande River, at or near Tornillo, Tex., authorized to be built by W. J. Stahmann, Edgar D. Brown, L. N. Shafer, and associates, their successors and assigns, by the act of Congress approved March 3, 1925, are hereby extended one and three years, respectively, from the date of approval hereof. SEC. 2. The right to alter, amend, or repeal this act is hereby expressly reserved.

With the following committee amendments:

In line 4, page 1, strike out the word "River."

In line 5, after the word "near," insert the words "a point 2 miles south of the town of."

The committee amendments were agreed to.

The bill as amended was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, was read the third time, and passed.

A motion to reconsider the vote by which the bill was passed was laid on the table.

BRIDGE ACROSS THE RIO GRANDE RIVER

The next business on the Consent Calendar was the bill (H. R. 12100) to amend the act entitled "An act granting the consent of Congress to the Gateway Bridge Co. for construction of a bridge across the Rio Grande between Brownsville, Tex., and Matamoras, Mexico," approved February 26, 1926.

The Clerk read the title of the bill.

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the present consideration of the bill?

Mr. LAGUARDIA. Mr. Speaker, reserving the right to ob ject, is there anyone present from the Lone Star State?

Mr. DENISON. I do not believe the author of the bill is present, but I can give the gentleman the information he desires. Mr. LAGUARDIA. Has the gentleman made an investigation as to the Gateway Bridge Co.?

Mr. DENISON. Yes. That company is owned by people living in Brownsville.

Mr. LAGUARDIA. In the locality?

Mr. DENISON. In the locality; yes. The bill is being amended to conform to the form we are now using. The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection? There was no objection.

The Clerk read the bill, as follows:

Be it enacted, etc., That the act entitled "An act granting the consent of Congress to the Gateway Bridge Co. for construction of a bridge across the Rio Grande between Brownsville, Tex., and Matamoros, Mexico," approved February 26, 1926, is amended to read as follows:

"That in order to facilitate international commerce, improve the Postal Service, and provide for military and other purposes, the Gateway Bridge Co., a corporation organized under the laws of Delaware, its successors and assigns, be, and is hereby, authorized to construct, maintain, and operate a bridge and approaches thereto across the Rio Grande River, so far as the United States has jurisdiction over the waters of such river, at a point suitable to the interests of navigation, between Brownsville, Tex., and Matamoros, Mexico, in accordance with the provisions of the act entitled 'An act to regulate the construction of bridges over navigable waters,' approved March 23, 1906, subject to the conditions and limitations contained in this act, and subject to the approval of the proper authorities in the Republic of Mexico.

"SEC. 2. There is hereby conferred upon the Gateway Bridge Co., its successors and assigns, all such rights and powers to enter upon lands and to acquire, condemn, occupy, possess, and use real estate and other property in the State of Texas needed for the location, construction, operation, and maintenance of such bridge and its approaches, as are possessed by railroad corporations for railroad purposes or by bridge corporations for bridge purposes in the State of Texas, upon making just compensation therefor to be ascertained and paid according to the laws of such State, and the proceedings therefor shall be the same as in the condemnation or expropriation of property for public purposes in such State.

"SEC. 3. The said Gateway Bridge Co., its successors and assigns, is hereby authorized to fix and charge tolls for transit over such bridge in accordance with any laws of Texas applicable thereto, and the rates of toll so fixed shall be the legal rates until changed by the Secretary of War under the authority contained in the act of March 23, 1906. SEC. 4. The right to sell, assign, transfer, and mortgage all the rights, powers, and privileges conferred by this Act is hereby granted to the Gateway Bridge Co., its successors and assigns, and any cor

poration to which or any person to whom such rights, powers, and privileges may be sold, assigned, or transferred, or who shall acquire the same by mortgage foreclosure, or otherwise, is hereby authorized and empowered to exercise the same as fully as though conferred herein directly upon such corporation or person.

"SEC. 5. The right to alter, amend, or repeal this act is hereby expressly reserved."

The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, was read the third time, and passed.

A motion to reconsider the vote by which the bill was passed was laid on the table.

BRIDGE ACROSS THE CUMBERLAND RIVER

The next business on the Consent Calendar was the bill (H. R. 12571) authorizing the State Highway Commission, Commonwealth of Kentucky, to construct, maintain, and operate a bridge across the Cumberland River at or near luka, Ky. The Clerk read the title of the bill.

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the present consideration of the bill?

There was no objection.

The Clerk read the bill, as follows:

Be it enacted, etc., That the consent of Congress is hereby granted to the State Highway Commission, Commonwealth of Kentucky, to construct, maintain, and operate a bridge and approaches thereto across the Cumberland River, at a point suitable to the interests of navigation, at or near the town of Iuka, Ky., in accordance with the provi

sions of an act entitled "An act to regulate the construction of bridges over navigable waters," approved March 23, 1906, and subject to the conditions and limitations contained in this act.

SEC. 2. If tolls are charged for the use of such bridge, the rates of toll shall be so adjusted as to provide a fund sufficient to pay the reasonable cost of maintaining, repairing, and operating the bridge and its approaches under economical management, and to provide a sinking fund sufficient to amortize the cost of the bridge and its approaches, including reasonable interest and financing cost, as soon as possible under reasonable charges, but within a period of not to exceed 20 years from the completion thereof. After a sinking fund sufficient for such amortization shall have been so provided, such bridge shall thereafter be maintained and operated free of tolls, or the rates of toll shall thereafter be so adjusted as to provide a fund of not to exceed the amount necessary for the proper maintenance, repair, and operation of the bridge and its approaches under economical management. An accurate record of the costs of the bridge and its approaches, the expenditures for maintaining, repairing, and operating the same, and of the daily tolls collected, shall be kept and shall be available for the information of all persons interested.

SEC. 3. The right to alter, amend, or repeal this act is hereby expressly reserved.

The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, was read the third time, and passed.

Mr. DENISON. This bill is to grant the consent of Congress to the Highway Commission of the State of Indiana. I will say to the gentleman from Kentucky that the State highway commission have been to see me about the bill, have wired me and written me, and they are anxious to build the bridge. I hope the gentleman from Kentucky will not object.

I helped the gentleman from Kentucky [Mr. KINCHELOE] get a bill through for Henderson in which he was interested. Mr. KINCHELOE. Yes; and I want to say that the only hesitancy that I have about objecting to this bill is on account of the gentleman from Illinois. He has been nice to me and is rendering a great public service. I am very familiar with the history of this legislation. Back in about 1922 I helped the then Congressman from Evansville to get through a bridge bill for the State of Kentucky and Indiana to build the bridge. On March 2, 1927, I helped to get a bill through for the State of Indiana to build it. All this time has gone by and Indiana has not built it. I do not think there is a chance for Indiana to build the bridge, while the people of Henderson are going to build the bridge. I do not want to be placed in the attitude of objecting, but I hope the gentleman will let the bill go over one more time and have it remain on the calendar. I do not want to have to object, but I will say frankly that except of my high regard and appreciation of the gentleman from Illinois I would have no hesitancy to object.

Mr. ROWBOTTOM. I may say to the gentleman, that if he asks for an extension of time with respect to his bridge I am going to see that they do not get it.

Mr. KINCHELOE. I will say to the gentleman that that bill has already been passed and they have started on it. Mr. ROWBOTTOM. They have not started on it yet, and the gentleman knows that.

Mr. KINCHELOE. No; the gentleman does not know it. I will say to the gentleman from Indiana, that the first bill. about 1922, would not have gone through if it had not been for the gentleman from Kentucky.

I ask unanimous consent that the bill may be passed over without prejudice and remain on the calendar.

The SPEAKER. The gentleman from Kentucky asks unanimous cousent that the bill may be passed over without prejudice. Is there objection?

Mr. SCHAFER. I object to that request. The gentleman from Kentucky has got his bridge bill through and I do not see why he does not allow this bill to go through.

Mr. KINCHELOE. If the gentleman from Wisconsin is going to object then I object to the consideration of the bill. The SPEAKER. Objection is heard.

BRIDGE ACROSS SABINE RIVER AT STARKS, LA, The next business on the Consent Calendar was the bill (H. R. 12623) granting the consent of Congress to the Louisiana Highway Commission to construct, maintain, and operate a free highway bridge across the Sabine River, at or

near

was laid on the table.

The title was amended.

BRIDGE ACROSS THE OHIO RIVER

The next business on the Consent Calendar was the bill (H. R. 12619) to extend the times for commencing and completing the construction of a bridge across the Ohio River at or near Evansville, Ind.

The Clerk read the title of the bill.

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the present consideration of the bill?

Mr. KINCHELOE. Mr. Speaker, reserving the right to object, I want to ask for some information from the gentleman from Indiana. There are two bridge bills here, one seeking to grant the permission of Congress to the State of Indiana to build a bridge and another to extend the act of March 2, 1927. Now, is it not a fact that there is a great division of sentiment in the city of Evansville as to which one, if either, of these bridges shall be built?

Mr. ROWBOTTOM. I will say to the gentleman from Kentucky that there is not any division on this bill, but there is a little on the bill at the head of the calendar.

Mr. KINCHELOE. Where do they propose to build this bridge-at Dades Park?

Louisiana as Route No. 7, to connect at or near Deweyville, Tex. The Clerk read the title of the bill.

The SPEAKER. Is there objection to the present consideration of the bill?

There was no objection.

The Clerk read the bill, as follows:

Be it enacted, etc., That the consent of Congress is hereby granted to the Louisiana Highway Commission to construct, maintain, and operate a free highway bridge and approaches thereto across the Sabine River, at a point suitable to the interests of navigation, at or near Starks, La., in accordance with the provisions of an act entitled, "An act to regulate the construction of bridges over navigable waters," approved March 23, 1906.

SEC. 2. The right to alter, amend, or repeal this act is hereby expressly reserved.

The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, was read the third time, and passed.

A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
The title was amended.

BRIDGE ACROSS NEW RIVER, W. VA.

The next business on the Consent Calendar was the bill (H. R. 12806) authorizing J. H. Harvell, his heirs, legal representatives, and assigns, to construct, maintain, and operate a bridge across New River at or near McCreery, Raleigh County, W. Va. The Clerk read the title of the bill.

The SPEAKER. Is there objection to the present consideration of the bill?

Mr. COOPER of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, a parliamentary inquiry.

The SPEAKER. The gentleman will state it.

Mr. COOPER of Wisconsin. Did the Clerk call Calendar No.

690?

Mr. DENISON. A Senate bill identical with this House bill was passed to-day shortly after we convened.

Mr. COOPER of Wisconsin. Yes; and I notice that the War Department specifically recommended against its passage. Mr. DENISON. I think the gentleman from Wisconsin is mistaken.

Mr. COOPER of Wisconsin. Here [indicating] is the report which so states. The Assistant Secretary advised against it. This comes from bringing up the Consent Calendar in this way when many Members are not here and it is not generally known that the Consent Calendar is to be called.

object to every private toll bridge connecting two Federal highways.

Mr. DENISON. I am glad to know how the gentleman feels about it, but the gentleman is giving me no information. My committee has been studying the subject for three or four years. They began the study of the subject before the gentleman from New York knew there was such a question. Before we report favorably a bill granting a franchise for the construction of a toll bridge by private individuals we obtain information as to whether the State, the county, or the city will probably, in the near future, construct the bridge. If we have

Mr. COOPER of Wisconsin. Yes.

Mr. LAGUARDIA. We are at a disadvantage because if the chairman of a committee or a member of the committee calls up a Senate bill in the early part of a session and we agree to it, there is nothing we can do. We are absolutely helpless in the matter.

MP. COOPER of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, I want to call attention to this statement:

However, as to authorizing the construction of a toll bridge by private interests, the department would urge against favorable action as it is not believed that a private toll bridge at this point should be authorized.

R. W. DUNLAP, Acting Secretary.

It got hustled through here before anybody in the House knew anything about it.

The SPEAKER. May the Chair call the attention of the gentleman from Wisconsin to the fact that that bill did not require unanimous consent. The bill was called up by motion, as a matter of right, it being a Senate bill and a similar House bill being on the calendar. It has nothing whatever to do with the Consent Calendar.

Mr. DENISON. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. COOPER] occasionally gets up here and makes a statement which seems to indicate he has some suspicion about something. This objection was not made by the Secretary of War at all, although the gentleman from Wisconsin said it was.

Mr. COOPER of Wisconsin. I did not say that. I read the name of the Acting Secretary of War.

Mr. DENISON. A moment ago, I will state to the gentleman, and I am sure every Member of the House will bear me out, the gentleman stated the War Department objected to this bill.

Mr. COOPER of Wisconsin. It did. The gentleman just stated that I said the Secretary of War. I did not say that. I said the War Department and then I read what the Assistant Secretary said, acting for the War Department.

Mr. DENISON. But the gentleman from Wisconsin is mistaken. It is not the War Department, it is the Department of Agriculture, and yet the gentleman from Wisconsin has made the statement time and again that it was the War Department.

Mr. LAGUARDIA. The Department of Agriculture is more concerned, because the Department of Agriculture is entrusted with the building of Federal-aid roads.

Mr. DENISON. The gentleman from New York knows, and I think the gentleman from Wisconsin knows, or ought to know, that these letters which are signed by the Department of Agriculture are written by the engineer in charge of the Bureau of Roads. He objects to all toll bridges privately owned, but he does not run the Congress. He has his views, and we ask him for them. and if he has any objections to a bill he states them. He undertakes to dictate to the House the policy we shall follow. If he does not think a bridge ought to be built at a certain place he recommends against it, but I take it that the House has the right to exercise its judgment, and that the House is the one that ought to decide whether the bridge shall be built, rather than a subordinate in the Department of Agriculture.

Mr. LAGUARDIA. The trouble about these bridge bills is this: In the old days the construction of a bridge over a navigable stream came up on rare occasions, and the question of obtaining the permission of the War Department was, as you might say, pro forma. Since the automobile and the building of roads, and especially Federal-aid roads, we have created conditions whereby there is an enormous value to a bridge connecting two Federal-aid roads or two great highways. the consent of Congress is no longer a pro forma matter, but is of vital importance. I agree with the views of the head of the Road Bureau in the Department of Agriculture. We are near the end of the session now, but beginning with the next session there are enough Members in the House who will

LXIX-540

So

State constructing the bridge, and the people of the community want the bridge, there is no other way except to have it constructed by private capital.

Mr. LAGUARDIA. I am not finding fault with the work of the committee--it is a matter of policy. I may be wrong, but a great many Members of the House are wrong with me on the subject, and we are going to assert it.

Mr. DENISON. We only authorize the construction of a toll bridge by private parties when the people can get it no other way. If the gentleman will concern himself by proposing some plan to get rid of these privately owned ferries, where in nearly every instance the ferry tolls are higher than bridge tolls and he will find that all of the ferries are privately owned he will be rendering a real public service, and will be contributing toward improving our transportation difficulties. Mr. LAGUARDIA. I do not object to having a toll bridge which will pay for itself in a certain time.

Mr. COOPER of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, I desire, in view of what the gentleman from Illinois has said, to read from the report. This is from the War Department and not from the Department of Agriculture:

WAR DEPARTMENT, April 13, 1928.

Respectfully returned to the chairman Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce, House of Representatives.

So far as the interests committed to this department are concerned, I know of no objection to the favorable consideration of the accompanying bill (H. R. 12678, 70th Cong., 1st sess.) authorizing the Calhoun Bridge Co., an Illinois corporation, to construct, maintain, and operate a bridge across the Illinois River at or near Grafton, Ill.

The Illinois River is, however, wholly within the limits of the State of Illinois, and the proposed bridge can consequently be authorized by State law and duly constructed, provided the plans are submitted to and approved by the Chief of Engineers and by the Secretary of War before construction is commenced, in conformity with the Federal law contained in section 9 of the river and harbor act of March 3, 1899. The enactment of this measure, therefore, appears to be unnecessary. DWIGHT F. DAVIS, Secretary of War.

The Acting Secretary of the Department of Agriculture says: However, as to authorizing the construction of a toll bridge by private interests, the department would urge against favorable action, as it is not believed that a private toll bridge at this point should be authorized.

The Secretary of War thinks this bill is unnecessary. Here is a bridge which is to be wholly within a State, and which can be constructed under State law, and the Secretary of War says the enactment of the pending bill is unnecessary. The Acting Secretary of the Department of Agriculture protests against it and says it ought not to be enacted into law.

Mr. DENISON. Mr. Speaker, under an act of Congress passed in 1899 where the navigable portion of the river lies wholly within a single State the bridge can be authorized by the State legislature. Whenever bills are referred to the War Department for information the Secretary of War-if the navigable portion of the river lies wholly within a single State-advises the committee to that effect so that the committee can know, and if the navigable portion of the river does lie wholly within a single State the Secretary says it is unnecessary to pass the act of Congress, because it can be done by the State legislature. But the State legislature may not meet for a year or two years, and so Members constantly come to Congress and ask the consent of Congress to build bridges, even though they could at some later time be constructed under an act of the State legislature. That has been done twenty-five or thirty times this session. We do not refuse to pass an act granting authority to build a bridge simply because the parties could go before the State legislature and obtain authority to do so. Mr. COOPER of Wisconsin. Will the gentleman permit an interruption?

Mr. DENISON. Yes.

Mr. COOPER of Wisconsin. We are nearly a thousand miles from where this proposed bridge is to be erected wholly within the State of Illinois. Speaking generally, I think that when a bridge is to be constructed wholly within the limits of a State the State legislature ought first to pass on it.

Mr. DENISON. Mr. Speaker, the committee thinks otherwise; but, Mr. Speaker, the Members of Congress may well judge these things for themselves. I am not the author of this bill. The author presented the bill, no doubt, because the community wanted the bridge. The bill was referred to the committee, and we have acted upon it. We reported the bill to the House, and it was on the calendar. A similar Senate bill was passed and was on the Speaker's table. I called up the Senate bill at the proper time and in the usual and proper manner under the rules of the House, and the Senate bill was passed without opposition.

Mr. CLARKE. Mr. Speaker, we have a number of other bills here before us. I know that we are anxious to approach them. I demand the regular order.

The SPEAKER. Is there objection to the present consideration of the bill?

There was no objection.

The Clerk read the bill, as follows:

Be it enacted, etc., That in order to promote interstate commerce, improve the Postal Service, and provide for military and other purposes, J. H. Harvell, his heirs, legal representatives, and assigns, be, and is hereby, authorized to construct, maintain, and operate a bridge and approaches thereto across New River, at a point suitable to the interests of navigation, at or near McCreery, Raleigh County, W. Va., in accordance with the provisions of the act entitled "An act to regulate the construction of bridges over navigable waters," approved March 23, 1906, and subject to the conditions and limitations contained in this act.

SEC. 2. After the completion of such bridge, as determined by the Secretary of War, either the State of West Virginia, any political subdivision thereof within or adjoining which any part of such bridge is located, or any two or more of them jointly, may at any time acquire and take over all right, title, and interest in such bridge and its approaches, and any interest in real property necessary therefor, by purchase or by condemnation or expropriation, in accordance with the laws of such State governing the acquisition of private property for public purposes by condemnation or expropriation. If at any time after the expiration of 20 years after the completion of such bridge the same is acquired by condemnation or expropriation, the amount of damages or compensation to be allowed shall not include good will, going value, or prospective revenues, or profit, but shall be limited to the sum of (1) the actual cost of constructing such bridge and its approaches, less a reasonable deduction for actual depreciation in value; (2) the actual cost of acquiring such interests in real property; (3) actual financing and promotion cost, not to exceed 10 per cent of the sum of the cost of constructing the bridge and its approaches and acquiring such interests in real property; and (4) actual expenditures for necessary improvements.

SEC. 3. If such bridge shall at any time be taken over or acquired by the State of West Virginia or by any municipality or other political subdivision or public agency thereof, under the provisions of section 2 of this act, and if tolls are thereafter charged for the use thereof, the rates of toll shall be so adjusted as to provide a fund sufficient to pay for the reasonable cost of maintaining, repairing, and operating the bridge and its approaches under economical management and to provide a sinking fund sufficient to amortize the amount paid therefor, including reasonable interest and financing cost, as soon as possible under reasonable charges, but within a period of not to exceed 20 years from the date of acquiring the same. After a sinking fund sufficient for such amortization shall have been so provided, such bridge shall thereafter be maintained and operated free of tolls, or the rates of toll shall thereafter be so adjusted as to provide a fund of not to exceed the amount necessary for the proper maintenance, repair, and operation of the bridge and its approaches under economical management. An accurate record of the amount paid for acquiring the bridge and its approaches, the actual expenditures for maintaining, repairing, and operating the same, and of the daily tolls collected shall be kept and shall be available for the information of all persons interested.

SEC. 4. J. H. Harvell, his heirs, legal representatives, and assigns, shall within 90 days after the completion of such bridge file with the Secretary of War and with the Highway Department of the State of West Virginia, a sworn, itemized statement showing the actual original cost of constructing the bridge and its approaches, the actual cost of acquiring any interest in real property necessary therefor, and the actual financing and promotion costs. The Secretary of War may, and at the request of the Highway Department of the State of West Virginia shall, at any time within three years after the completion of such bridge, investigate such costs and determine the accuracy and the reasonableness of the costs alleged in the statement of costs so filed, and shall make a finding of the actual reasonable cost of constructing, financing, and promoting such bridge, for the purpose of such investigation the said

J. H. Harvell, his heirs, legal representatives, and assigns shall make available all of its records in connection with the construction, financing, and promotion thereof. The findings of the Secretary of War as to the reasonable costs of the construction, financing, and promotion of the bridge shall be conclusive for the purposes mentioned in section 2 of this act, subject only to review in a court of equity for fraud or gross mistake.

SEC. 5. The right to sell, assign, transfer, and mortgage all the rights, powers, and privileges conferred by this act is hereby granted to J. H. Harvell, his heirs, legal representatives, and assigns, and any corporation to which or any person to whom such rights, powers, and privileges may be sold, assigned, or transferred, or who shall acquire the same by mortgage foreclosure or otherwise, is hereby authorized and empowered to exercise the same as fully as though conferred herein directly upon such corporation or person.

SEC. 6. The right to alter, amend, or repeal this act is hereby expressly reserved.

The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, was read the third time, and passed. A motion to reconsider the vote by which the bill was passed was laid on the table.

BRIDGE ACROSS RIO GRANDE RIVER AT WESLACO, TEX. The next business on the Consent Calendar was the bill (H. R. 12877) authorizing the Los Olmos International Bridge Co., its successors and assigns, to construct, maintain, and operate a bridge across the Rio Grande River at or near Weslaco, Tex.

The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The SPEAKER.

Is there objection to the present considera

tion of the bill. Mr. LAGUARDIA. Mr. Speaker, reserving the right to object, will the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. DENISON] inform us whether this International Bridge Co. is a local company? Mr. DENISON. I am sorry, but I do not have that information.

Mr. COCHRAN of Missouri. Mr. Speaker, I spoke to the gentleman from Texas [Mr. GARNER], and he assured me that these people were going to build the bridge and then would not assign the franchise.

Mr. LAGUARDIA. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that this bill be passed over for a few minutes. The SPEAKER. Is there objection? There was no objection.

ABOLISHING BAILIFFS AND CRIERS IN UNITED STATES COURTS The next business on the Consent Calendar was the bill (H. R. 11994), to abolish bailiffs and criers in the United States courts and to provide for the performance of their duties by United States marshals and their deputies, and for other purposes.

The Clerk read the title of the bill.

The SPEAKER. Is there objection to the present consideration of the bill?

Mr. WHITE of Colorado. Mr. Speaker, I object.
The SPEAKER. This bill requires three objections.
Mr. REYNOLDS. Mr. Speaker, I object.

Mr. SHALLENBERGER. Mr. Speaker, I object.
Mr. LAGUARDIA. Mr. Speaker, I object.

DEVELOPMENT OF VOCATIONAL EDUCATION

The next business on the Consent Calendar was the bill (H. R. 12241) to provide for the further development of vocational education in the several States.

The Clerk read the title of the bill.

The SPEAKER. Is there objection to the present consideration of the bill?

Mr. HOOPER. Mr. Speaker, reserving the right to object, the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. CRAMTON] asked me to ask on his behalf that this bill be passed over without prejudice. The SPEAKER. Is there objection? There was no objection.

CREATION OF INDIAN TRUST ESTATES

The next business on the Consent Calendar was the bill (H. R. 7204) to authorize the creation of Indian trust estates, and for other purposes.