ABOLISH PAPAGO SAGUARO NATIONAL MONUMENT, ARIZ. JANUARY 17, 1930.-Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union and ordered to be printed Mr. SWING, from the Committee on the Public Lands, submitted the following REPORT [To accompany H. R. 5672] The Committee on the Public Lands, to whom was referred a bill (H. R. 5672) to abolish the Papago Saguaro National Monument, Arizona, to provide for the disposition of certain lands therein for park and recreational uses, and for other purposes, having considered the same recommend that it do pass with the following amendments: Line 11, page 2, strike out the word "town" and insert the word "city". Line 20, page 2, strike out the word "town" and insert the word "city". Line 12, page 3, strike out the word "town" and insert the word "city." The Papago Saguaro National Monument was originally created for the purpose of perpetuating the desert flora which abounds in the southwest. The Director of National Parks testified that the flora in this monument was no more striking nor unique than what could be found on lands belonging to the Government in a hundred other places. The land proposed to be transferred to the city of Tempe and to the State of Arizona will be better preserved by these agencies for park purposes than by the Federal Government. No money has been expended by the Park Service upon this area. By presidential proclamation dated January 31, 1914, there was set aside as the Papago Saguaro National Monument an area consisting of 2,050.43 acres situated to the north of and contiguous to the limits of the city of Tempe, in the county of Maricopa, State of Arizona. By Executive order dated December 28, 1922, the original withdrawal was modified so as to eliminate from the Papago Saguaro National Monument approximately 110 acres. The bill H. R. 5672 provides for the abolishment of the Papago Saguaro National Monument and makes disposition of the lands embraced therein as follows: 1. To the National Guard of the State of Arizona there are dedicated and reserved, in order that the restricted area being used for rifle HR-71-2-VOL 1-76 range purposes may be adequately enlarged, 160 acres situated in the northwestern corner of the monument, and, in addition and contiguous thereto, there are reserved 320 acres of the public domain situated outside of the boundaries of the monument. 2. To the city of Tempe, the present city park of which extends to the southern boundary of the monument, there is to be sold, at $1.25 an acre, for recreational and park purposes, approximately 480 acres situated in the southeastern corner of the monument. 3. To the Salt River Valley Water Users Association there is to be sold, at $1.25 an acre, approximately 90 acres situated in the easterp portion of the monument. 4. To the State of Arizona there is to be sold for recreational and park purposes, at $1.25 per acre, the remainder of the monument, approximately 1,200 acres. In the area to be thus acquired by the State there is to be established a State fish hatchery and a State zoo. And in addition provides that 1. That there shall be reserved to the United States all mineral, oil, and coal deposits. 2. Grants made shall be subject to existing valid claims and easements. 3. In the event that either the State of Arizona or the city of Tempe fails to maintain for public park and recreational purposes the lands granted, then such lands shall revert to the United States. The Director of the National Park Service and the Secretary of the Interior recommend the passage of the bill, as follows: DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR, The CHAIRMAN COMMITTEE ON THE PUBLIC LANDS, House of Representatives. MY DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: In response to your request of December 5, for a report on H. R. 5672, I transmit herewith a report from the Director of the National Park Service. I know of no reason why the bill should not be favorably considered. RAY LYMAN WILBUR, Secretary. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR, Memorandum for the Secretary. Reference is made to letter of December 5 from the chairman Committee on the Public Lands, House of Representatives, requesting a report on H. R. 5672, "A bill to abolish the Papago Saguaro National Monument, Ariz., to provide for the disposition of certain lands therein for park and recreational uses, and for other purposes." The department has gone on record in the past in favor of turning the area comprised in this monument over to the State of Arizona by congressional action in view of persistent applications received from the State for the use of lands within the monument not consistent with national monument purposes, and the War Department desires that part of the lands therein be turned over to the State as an addition to the National Guard rifle range. H. R. 17294, Sixty-ninth Congress, and S. 5900, Seventieth Congress, provided for granting the lands within the monument to the State and the town of Tempe for park purposes and to the State for rifle-range purposes. The present bill appears satisfactory and apparently will accomplish the purposes desired by the State and the War Department. Therefore the service has no objection to its favorable consideration. 2d Session No. 261 QUIET TITLE AND POSSESSION WITH RESPECT TO CERTAIN LANDS IN CUSTER COUNTY, NEBR. JANUARY 17, 1930.-Committed to the Committee of the Whole House and ordered to be printed Mr. HOWARD, from the Committee on Public Lands, submitted the following REPORT [To accompany H. R. 3657] The Committee on the Public Lands, to whom was referred (H. R. 3657) to quiet title and possession with respect to certain lands in Custer County, Nebr., having considered the same, report it favorably to the House with the recommendation that it do pass without amendment. A letter signed by the Secretary of the Interior transmitting a memorandum of the Commissioner of the General Land Office, together with this memorandum, is set out in full for the information of the House and explains fully the reasons for this legislation. Hon. DoN B. COLTON, DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR, Chairman Committee on the Public Lands, House of Representatives. MY DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: Replying further to your letter of December 12, in which you requested a report on H. R. 3657, which is a bill to quiet title and possession in respect to certain lands in Custer County, Nebr., I transmit herewith a memorandum on the subject from the Commissioner of the General Land Office. Upon a review of the measure, I agree with Commissioner Moore. Very truly yours, RAY LYMAN WILBUR, Secretary. The SECRETARY: DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR, GENERAL LAND OFFICE, Washington, December 18, 1929. Reference is had to the request of Hon. Don B. Colton, chairman House Committee on the Public Lands, dated December 12, 1929, having reference to H. R. 3657, a bill to quiet title and possession with respect to certain lands in Custer County, Nebr. The land covered by the above-mentioned bill is lot 4, sec. 11, T. 18 N., R. 17 W., 6th P. M. In 1882 and 1883, Harvey G. Shannon and James Doolittle, respectively, made entries each of which embraces said lot 4 with other land; patents issued to both entrymen in 1890. Shannon in 1897 returned his patent unrecorded accompanied by a warranty deed in which he and his wife, Laura Shannon, reconveyed to the United States the land covered by his patent and requested that his entry be amended to include lot 1 of said section instead of lot 4. He set forth that he intended to include lot 1 in his original application and was then occupying that tract. The General Land Office canceled the patent and its record and issued to Shannon a new one correctly describing his land. This relieved the conflict between Shannon and Doolittle. Prior to the time that Shannon and his wife reconveyed lot 4 to the United States Mrs. Shannon became the owner of this lot under the Doolittle title. Later Mr. and Mrs. Shannon conveyed lot 4 to their daughter, Irene Shannon, and local abstracters give it as their opinion that the Shannons by their deed to the Government conveyed not only the interest received by Harvey G. Shannon through his patent but also the interest acquired from James Doolittle, and that the legal title to the lot is vested in the United States, leaving Irene Shannon without title thereto. In departmental letter of May 25, 1929, Hon. Robert G. Simmons, House of Representatives, was advised that the condition of the title as disclosed in the abstract was such that relief legislation should be drafted along the lines of the act of February 16, 1929, Public, No. 764, Seventieth Congress, to quiet title and possession with respect to certain lands in Faulkner County, Ark. The enactment of the bill is recommended. C. C. MOORE, Commissioner. O 2d Session No. 262 RATIFYING AND CONFIRMING TITLE OF STATE OF MINNESOTA AND ITS GRANTEES TO CERTAIN LANDS PATENTED TO IT BY THE UNITED STATES JANUARY 17, 1930.-Referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be printed Mr. NOLAN, from the Committee on the Public Lands, submitted the following REPORT [To accompany H. R. 5178] The Committee on the Public Lands, to whom was referred the bill (H. R. 5178) ratifying and confirming the title of the State of Minnesota and its grantees to certain lands patented to it by the United States of America, having considered the same, report it favorably to the House with the recommendation that it do pass without amendment. The following letter and memorandum received by the chairman of the committee are herein set out in full for the information of the House and explains the purpose of this legislation. Hon. DoN B. COLTON, DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR, Chairman Committee on the Public Lands, House of Representatives. MY DEAR MR. COLTON: In response to your request for my recommendation on H. R. 5178, a bill ratifying and confirming the title of the State of Minnesota and its grantees to certain lands patented to it by the United States, I have pleasure in inclosing a memorandum from the General Land Office, recommending enactment of this measure. I concur. Attached also is a memorandum from the Indian Office for your information giving another view of this matter and suggesting certain modifications. I am transmitting this additional memorandum so that your committee may have both views before it. I have referred the question to the solicitor for the department, who advises that the bill as drawn is the result of conferences between representatives of the State, representatives of the former solicitor of this department, and representatives of the Attorney General, and expresses what is probably the best obtainable compromise of the pending legislation. He advised me that the State of |