WAR DEPARTMENT, December 30, 1929 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. 6621, Seventy-first Congress, second session, to extend the times for commencing and completing the construction of a bridge across the water between the mainland at or near Cedar Point and Dauphin Island, Ala. PATRICK J. HURLEY, Hon. JAMES S. PARKER, Secretary of War DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, Washington, D. C., December 20, 1929. Chairman Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce, House of Representatives. DEAR MR. PARKER: Careful consideration has been given to the bill, H. R. 6621, transmitted with your letter of December 12 with request for a report thereon and such views relative thereto as the department might desire to communicate. This bill would extend for one and three years, respectively, from February 25, 1930, the times for commencing and completing the construction of the bridge across the water between the mainland at or near Cedar Point and Dauphin Island, Ala., authorized by act of Congress approved February 25, 1927, to be built by Dauphin Island Railway & Harbor Co. The act of February 25, 1927, authorized the construction of a railroad bridge or a highway bridge or a combination railroad and highway bridge. The proposed improvement appears to relate more particularly to railroad and harbor development. The bill, therefore, is without objection so far as this department is concerned. Sincerely. C. F. MARVIN, Acting Secretary. Hon. John McDuffie who introduced this bill, has submitted the following information with respect thereto : Mr. E. J. LAYTON, HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, Washington, D. C., December 20, 1929. Clerk Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce, House of Representatives. DEAR MR. LAYTON: I inclose a letter from the attorney for the bridge company for Dauphin Island which contains some information which might be of interest to the committee with reference to the bill H. R. 6621, extending the time for the construction of the bridge to Dauphin Island from the mainland. Further information will come from Mr. Dewberry, president of the company. Thanking you for your courtesy, and with the season's greetings, I am Sincerely yours, JOHN MCDUFFIE. Hon. JOHN MCDUFFIE, CABANISS, JOHNSTON, COCKE & CABANISS, House of Representatives, Washington, D. C. DEAR JOHN: I am asking Mr. Dewberry to send you direct from Mobile the exact status of the bridge plans. No action could be taken until the county authorities were enabled to build the highway to the bridge head at Cedar Point. The necessary authority was received only when the people of Mobile County approved the necessary bond issue. The cost of the highway to the bridge head will be approximately $500,000. As soon as this authority was received, the bridge company's agents proceeded immediately with the preparation of the plans for submission to and approval by the United States engineers. The engineer who was for many years associated with General Sibert and is chief engineer of the State docks commission is preparing the plans in conference with the United States engineers. They should be ready for submission within a few days. Mr. Dewberry will write you more fully in a day or two. Mr. E. J. LAYTON, FORNEY JOHNSTON. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, Washington, D. C., January 14, 1930. Clerk Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce, House of Representatives. DEAR MR. LAYTON: I herewith inclose several letters which I thought I had forwarded to you relative to extending the time for the construction of the bridge to Dauphin Island. You will note one of these letters is from the president of the Dauphin Island Railway & Harbor Co., one from the mayor of the city of Mobile, and the other from the chairman of the board of revenue and road commissioners of Mobile County, Ala. With assurances of my best wishes, I am. JOHN McDuffie. Hon. JOHN MCDUFFIE, DAUPHIN ISLAND RAILWAY & HARBOR CO., House of Representatives, Washington, D. C. DEAR MR. MCDUFFIE: In reply to your letter of December 16 to Mr. Forney Johnston, of Birmingham, Ala., for information requested of you by the Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce, House of Representatives, dated December 14, 1929, beg to advise as follows: For more than a year the Dauphin Island Railway & Harbor Co. has been in active negotiations with contractors for the construction of this bridge. As this is to be a toll bridge it was considered necessary to obtain a permit from Mobile County including the obligation of Mobile County to extend the county highway to the bridgehead at Cedar Point. These negotiations necessarily consumed considerable time, but on May 1, 1929, arrangements were made with Mobile County for the permit and for the extension of the county highway to the bridgehead at Cedar Point, requiring the issuance of $400,000 face value county bonds. This proposition, known locally as project 23, had to be submitted to a vote of the people of Mobile County. This was done September 17, 1929, and so popular was the project to connect Dauphin Island and the mainland at Cedar Point that the bond issue carried, 5 to 1. Immediately thereafter the engineers began and have continuously proceeded with the surveys, etc., necessary to definitely locate the bridge, and with plans and specifications to be submitted for the approval of the War Department. The plans and specifications are being handled by Mr. H. W. Bell, formerly resident engineer for the Alabama State Docks Commission, under General Seibert during the construction of our State docks. Mr. Bell advises me that the location and specifications are nearly ready to be submitted to the War Department, but realizing that the time to begin work under the general law governing-although not stipulated in the act of Congress approved February 25, 1927, which we seek to amend-was drawing near, we found it necessary to ask this amendment in order to give time for the approval of plans and specifications by the United States engineers and for such other purposes as are absolutely necessary before beginning construction. If further information is desired, please wire me my expense and I will immediately furnish same. With appreciation and best regards, Yours sincerely, DAUPHIN ISLAND RAILWAY & HARBOR CO. By J. M. DEWBERRY, President. Hon. JOHN MCDUFFIE, House of Representatives, Washington, D. C. CITY OF MOBILE, DEAR JOHN: Referring to the proposed amendment to the act of Congress approved February 25, 1927, authorizing the Dauphin Island Railway & Harbor Co. to construct a bridge across the water from the mainland at or near Cedar Point to Dauphin Island, beg to advise that the city of Mobile has purchased and owns what was formerly Fort Gaines Military Reservation, for an amusement park and recreation purposes, and is very desirous, of immediate construction of the proposed bridge, and therefore hope that this amendment will be adopted. The people of the city of Mobile and Mobile County have, by an overwhelming majority, expressed themselves in favor of this project. Yours sincerely, Hon. JOHN MCDUFFIE, HARRY T. HARTWELL, Mayor. MOBILE, ALA., December 19, 1929. House of Representatives, Washington, D. C. DEAR SIR: Negotiations, surveys, and specifications looking to the construction of the proposed bridge from the mainland at or near Cedar Point to Dauphin Island, authorized by act of Congress approved February 25, 1927, have necessarily consumed much time. As an evidence of the interest of the people in the development of Dauphin Island, the following sums have been voted toward roads leading thereto: Cedar Point Road to Bay Boosters Club, including bridge over Dog River, $342,403.49, to which was added an additional $50,000. The completion of this road to Cedar Point, not including bridges over Cut Off and Fowl River, $400,000, and for a road connecting with the paved road at Coden and extending to the Cedar Point Road, $260,000. The present bridge over Fowl River will be used temporarily, after about $15,000 has been spent improving same, but eventually it will cost $200,000 or more for a new bridge over that stream. There is also not included in the above figures about $15,000 for a bridge over the Cut Off on the Cedar Point Road. We trust that you will do what you can to see that the time allowed for the building of the bridge to Dauphin Island is extended as provided in the amendment which you introduced. Yours sincerely, BRIDGE ACROSS HATCHIE RIVER NEAR BOLIVAR, TENN. JANUARY 16, 1930.-Referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be printed Mr. HUDDLESTON, from the Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce, submitted the following REPORT [To accompany H. R. 6844] The Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce, to whom was referred the bill (H. R. 6844) to grant the consent of Congress to the highway department of the State of Tennessee to construct a bridge across the Hatchie River on the Bolivar-Jackson Road near the town of Bolivar in Hardeman County, Tenn., having considered the same, report thereon with a recommendation that it pass. The bill has the approval of the War and Agriculture Departments, as will appear by the letters attached and which are made a part of this report. WAR DEPARTMENT, January 2, 1930. 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. 6844, 71st Cong., 2d sess.) granting the consent of Congress to the highway department of the State of Tennessee to construct a bridge across the Hatchie River on the Jackson-Bolivar Road near the town of Bolivar in Hardeman County, Tenn. The navigable portion of the Hatchie River, however, lies wholly within the limits of the State of Tennessee, 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. PATRICK J. HURLEY, |