structs bridges soon those other toll bridges will, in the near future, have been paid for out of tolls and will, when free, divert the traffic from Omaha, making it very difficult to ever pay for construction out of tolls collected at Omaha. Hence the necessity of immediate action. THE BRIDGE PROBLEM AT OMAHA There has been, for a great many years, talk of new bridges at Omaha. Several efforts (1916 and 1928) were made to vote bonds for the purpose of constructing a free bridge, but in each instance. the electors turned down the proposition. There is at the present time a toll bridge at Omaha. This bridge is more than 42 years old and carries all the bus, street-car, pedestrian, automobile, and truck traffic between Omaha and the east. A catastrophe would result, Omaha and vicinity would be isolated from the east, were anything to happen to this ancient structure, which is not fireproof. An effort was made to purchase the present toll bridge. A committee appointed by the mayors of Omaha and Council Bluffs, after a year's study of the bridge question, turned down the offer made by the owners of the bridge. The present 42-yearold structure, which was built in 1887, has cost, with all improvements and repairs included, approximately $1,500,000 and was offered to Omaha and Council Bluffs for the sum of $4,155,296 with the further understanding that the present users (street-railway company) should have free use of the property after acquisition by the cities. The chamber of commerce, like the bridge committee, stated that the price was exorbitant, and refused the offer. Comments by citizens can be found in newspaper clippings inclosed. The owners and lessees of the present bridge have made open and public statements that they would fight any proposition the cities had for the construction of a competing bridge. It is very apparent that the owners of the present bridge could delay action, for many years, by the cities in their efforts to construct a competing bridge. With the threat already made by the present bridge owners to any action by the cities it is very apparent that some other plan must be sponsored. To date the only definite suggestion by any civic organization, including the so-called joint bridge committee, appointed by the mayors, has been advanced by the chamber of commerce which group suggested building a bridge to be paid for out of tax bonds. This suggestion is not feasible for two reasons, it has been voted down twice and the cities of Omaha and Council Bluffs have almost reached their limit on bonded indebtedness and the public officials have refused to entertain the proposal. It is therefore suggested that this plan, wherein Charles B. Morearty is acting as nothing more or less than a trustee, without salary or promotion fee, is the proper solution of a difficult problem. Mr. Morearty has expended many years of time, effort, and investigation in a study of the bridge problem, and is equipped, financially and otherwise, to complete the undertaking. In the plan proposed Mr. Morearty, a trustee 1. Is granted authority to construct, maintain, and operate toll bridges at Omaha and South Omaha. 2. All tolls collected shall be applied to the operation of the bridge and the amortization of the cost thereof. 3. No allowance is made for any promotion fee or salary whatsoever 4. A commission of three members shall be appointed (one by the mayor of Omaha, one by the mayor of Council Bluffs, and one by Charles B. Morearty) to assume complete charge of the bridges upon completion. 5. The States, counties, or cities in which the bridges are located may assume ownership and control of the bridges at any time without the expenditure of one dollar, by taking the bridges subject to the balance in indebtedness. 6. After the costs of the structures has been paid the bridges shall be toll free. 7. Contracts for the construction of the bridges shall be let to the lowest responsible bidders. If at any time after the passage of these bills the cities desire to, and are able to, proceed in another manner, Charles B. Morearty shall abandon his projects if construction has not commenced. If construction has commenced the cities may avail themselves of the privileges conferred by these bills. NEWSPAPER CLIPPINGS Editorials from two principal newspapers only reflecting the attitude of the public regarding the bridge situation at Omaha. Other newspaper items not included as they are too voluminous to handle. No. 1. Omaha Bee-News, September 9, 1929: "Condemns the owners of the present toll bridge for attempting to sell their 42-year-old bridge to the cities of Omaha and Council Bluffs for the sum of $4,155,296 and states that the value is far below the price asked." No. 2. Omaha World-Herald, September 10, 1929: "In part the editorial sets out that 'Omaha and Council Bluffs will not pay the owners and the lessees of the Douglas Street Bridge $4,155,296 for their property, nor will they pay anything approximating that figure. This news paper further apologizes for having sponsored the purchase of the present bridge and decries the apparent poor faith of the owners of the bridge. No. 3. Omaha Bee-News, November 11, 1929: Charges the owners of the present bridge with employing 'threats, based on false premises' in trying to foist upon the public the ancient bridge. In part the editorial states 'The people will neither be fooled nor forced." No. 4. Omaha World-Herald, November 20, 1929: "Condemns the owners of the present bridge for trying to force the public to vote upon the question of purchasing the bridge for the sum of $4,155,296 after the offer at that price was turned down by the chamber of commerce and various bridge committees. The editorial states in part and so President Shannahan is hopeful that he can sell to the voters a bridge, the actual physical value of which can not be more than a million and a half dollars, for $4,000,000.'"' No. 5. Omaha World-Herald, November 23, 1929: "Sets out various reasons for not purchasing the present toll bridge. ConJemns the selling price; the suggestion that no competing bridge be built; the age of the structure (42 years); the cost of upkeep and the free use of the bridge after the proposed sale by the present owners. It is the consensus of opinion that, ultimately, no purchase by the cities of the present bridge shall ever be consummated, and for that reason some other plan for the acquisition of a bridge should be adopted so that there shall be no further delay in establishing a bridge that shall be, in time, free from tolls. BRIDGE ACROSS MISSOURI RIVER AT OMAHA, NEBR. JANUARY 16, 1930.-Referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be printed Mr. MILLIGAN, from the Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce, submitted the following REPORT [To accompany H. R. 7409] The Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce, to whom was referred the bill (H. R. 7409) authorizing Charles B. Morearty, his heirs, legal representatives, and assigns, to construct, maintain, and operate a bridge across the Missouri River at or near Omaha, Nebr., having considered the same, report thereon with a recommendation that it pass. The bill has the approval of the War Department, as will appear by the letter attached and which is made a part of this report. WAR DEPARTMENT, December 31, 1929. Respectfully returned to the chairman Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce, House of Representatives. The accompanying bill, H. R. 7409, Seventy-first Congress, second session, would, if passed, authorize Charles B. Morearty to construct a bridge across the Missouri River at or near Omaha, Nebr. Attention is invited to the act of Congress approved May 24, 1928, as amended by act approved June 20, 1929, which authorizes the city of Council Bluffs, Iowa, and the city of Omaha, Nebr., or either of them, to construct, maintain, and operate a free highway bridge across the Missouri River between Council Bluffs, Iowa, and Omaha, Nebr. No objection is interposed to the passage of the accompanying bill with the understanding that but one bridge is actually to be constructed at the locality in question. PATRICK J. HURLEY, Hon. JAMES S. PARKER, DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, Washington, D. C., December 21, 1929. Chairman Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce, House of Representatives. DEAR MR. PARKER: Careful consideration has been given to the bill H. R. 7409, transmitted with your letter of December 13, with request for a report thereon and such views relative thereto as the department might desire to communicate. This bill would authorize Charles B. Morearty, his heirs, legal representatives, and assigns, to construct, maintain, and operate a bridge and approaches thereto across the Missouri River at or near Omaha, Nebr. The bridge would be a private toll bridge but under the bill (sec. 4) either of the States of Iowa or Nebraska, or any public agency or political subdivision of either of such States, within or adjoining which any part of such bridge is located, may at any time take over the bridge on the basis of the bonds, debentures, or other instruments of indebtedness, including accrued interest thereon outstanding against such bridge at the time it is taken over. There is no limitation, however, in the bill as to the amount of such bonds, debentures, or other instruments of indebtedness that may be issued. The bill also provides (sec. 8) that any contract made in connection with the construction of the bridge which shall involve the expenditure of more than $5,000 shall be let by competitive bidding after reasonable public advertisement; and (sec. 9) there is proposed a commission to supervise the collection of tolls and audit all expenditures of money received from the collection of tolls, such commission to consist of one member to be appointed by the mayor of Omaha, one to be appointed by the mayor of Council Buffs, Iowa, and one to be appointed by Mr. Morearty, his heirs, legal representatives, or assigns. The only highway bridge across the Missouri River at Omaha at the present time is a toll bridge owned by the street-railway company. For the last several years there has been a movement on in Omaha to make this existing toll bridge free by acquiring same from the railway company. A rather acute controversy has arisen over this matter and the city has not as yet been able to arrange any reasonable terms with the owners of the existing bridge for its acquisition by the city. The proposed bill would authorize the erection of a second toll bridge at Omaha. It is believed that to authorize the construction of this second toll bridge would be very unfortunate and the department would recommend against favorable action on the bill. Sincerely, R. W. DUNLAP, Acting Secretary. O BRIDGE ACROSS HOLSTON RIVER NEAR RUGGLES FERRY, KNOX COUNTY, TENN. JANUARY 16, 1930.-Referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be printed Mr. DENISON, from the Committee on Interstate and Foreign Com merce, submitted the following REPORT [To accompany H. R. 7566] The Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce, to whom was referred the bill (H. R. 7566) granting the consent of Congress to the highway department of the State of Tennessee to construct a bridge across the Holston River on projected Tennessee highway No. 9, in Knox 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, December 28, 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. 7566, Seventy-first Congress, second session, granting the consent of Congress to the highway department of the State of Tennessee to construct a bridge across the Holston River on projected Tennessee highway No. 9 in Knox County, Tenn. The navigable portions of the Holston River, however, lie 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 innecessary. PATRICK J. HURLEY, |