The views of the Chief of Engineers are concurred in by the Department. WILLIAM C. ENDICOTT, Secretary of War. Hon. W. P. FRYE, Chairman Committee on Commerce, United States Senate. The following is a copy of Appendix W of the Annual Report of the Chief of Engineers for 1877 referred to in the above letter: W 3. PROTECTION OF PUBLIC WORKS AGAINST TRESPASS OR INJURY. OFFICE OF THE CHIEF OF ENGINEERS, SIR: With the view to a compliance with the third section of the river and harbor act of August 14, 1876, which requires a report to Congress of all the instances in which piers, breakwaters, or other structures built by the United States in aid of [p. 1] commerce or navigation are used, occupied, or injured by a corporation or an individual, and the extent and mode of such use or injury, and the facts touching the same, and also what legislation is necessary to protect public works constructed by the United States against trespass or injury thereto, I instructed the officers and agents of this office in charge of public works to report all such instances within their knowledge, and also their views as to the legislation which would best prevent the evils in question. It appears that, with the exception of the occupancy of the East Pier at Cleveland, Ohio, by the Pittsburgh and Cleveland Railroad Company, the terms of which are now being adjusted, there has not been to any serious or great extent injurious use or occupation of structures or works built by the United States to report to this office. There have been instances of temporary occupation of piers as landing-places for cargoes which, by their weight, might injure the works; but in most cases the practice was discontinued upon notification. There are instances of injury to piers from collision of vessels, from carelessness as well as from unavoidable causes. There are also instances of willful injury arising from the pulling up of the deck-planks of wooden piers for the purpose of tying vessels. There are instances of serious injury to navigable waters by the discharge of sawmill waste into streams; also from booms for logs being placed in such a way as to seriously, and sometimes totally, impede navigation, and also instances of removal of stone from wing-dams, and of breaking openings through them for the passage of small boats or running of logs, thus rendering the dams incapable of effecting the object for which they were built. There are instances of injury to water-gauges permanently established for the record of fluctuations of water-surface. In fair-ways of harbors, channels are injured from deposits of ballast, steamboat ashes, oysters, and rubbish from passing vessels. In some instances the local authorities have exercised a control over the public works in their vicinity, and in most cases the trespass or injury has been corrected upon notification. So long as works are in progress and in charge of an officer or agent these evils are rare, but as they pass out of his hands they are at the mercy of evil-disposed persons, and it would be well under those circumstances to make it the duty of all officers of the Government, especially custom-house and revenue officers and light-house keepers, to report all cases of trespass or injury coming under their observation, either to their own department or to the nearest United States district attorney. In many cases of harbor improvements on the lakes the Government has not acquired title to the land on which the structure is built, so that it is a question as to the right of the Government to prevent the use of the piers by the owners of the adjacent land and prevent them from having access to the stream. In the case of breakwaters isolated from the shore and resting on land owned by the United States, or State, the question of control is simple. The object of these works being for the benefit of commerce, there should be no objection to their occupancy by private parties or corporations when finished, provided that the improvement of navigation for which they were built is unimpaired and the Government relieved of the expense of maintaining them. A majority of the officers and agents of this office in charge of public works deem the penalty inflicted by the concluding paragraph of section 3 of the act of August 14, 1876, a sufficient protection, but it has also been suggested that its provisions should be extended so as (1) To cover all cases of trespass on United States grounds and structures. (2) To cover all cases of negligent as well as willful injury. (3) To cover not only river, harbor, and navigation works, but also all structures or marks established by the United States, so as to include all boundarymarks, tide-gauges, stations, buoys, etc. The special act of Congress (see vol. 18, Statutes at Large, part 3, p. 50) for the protection of the work in progress for the improvement of the navigation of the mouths of the Mississippi by dredging has proved defective, inasmuch as it requires proof of malice or intention, instead of simple proof of fact of injury or impediment to navigation. In the case of the Louisville and Portland Canal, and at the Harbor of Refuge at Sand Beach, Lake Huron, experience has shown the necessity of some enactment to regulate the movement of vessels therein, to avoid danger to vessels and injury to the works. I have already, on the 29th February last, submitted a letter from Major Weitzel, Corps of Engineers, with inclosed form of an act which he recommends should be enacted by Congress for the government and control of this harbor of refuge. This was embodied in bill H. R. No. 2927 of last session of Congress. [p. 2] To cover all cases of trespass and injury herein mentioned, and to conform as near as may be to the conditions required, I beg leave to suggest, as a modification of House bill No. 1079, of the last session of Congress, the inclosed form of an act which may cover all cases likely to arise, including the control of the Harbor of Refuge on Lake Huron, and of the Louisville and Portland Canal. Very respectfully, your obedient servant, A. A. HUMPHREYS, Brig. Gen, and Chief of Engineers. Hon. J. D. CAMERON, Secretary of War. 1.30a(2) HOUSE COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE NEW YORK HARBOR. APRIL 27, 1888.-Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union and ordered to be printed. Mr. BRYCE, from the Committee on Commerce, submitted the following REPORT: [To accompany bill S. 1241.] The Committee on Commerce, to whom was referred the bill (S. 1241) "to prevent obstructive and injurious deposits in the harbor and adjacent waters of New York City, by dumping or otherwise, and to punish and prevent such offenses," have had same under consideration, and beg leave to report it back to the House with amendments, which makes its provisions similar to those of the House bill heretofore reported, and already on the Calendar of the House, with a favorable recommendation from your committee. [p. 1] 1.30a(3) CONGRESSIONAL RECORD, VOL. 19 (1888): 1.30a (3) (a) March 21, April 6: Debated, amended and passed Senate, pp. 2300-2301, 2775 [No Relevant Discussion of Pertinent Section] 1.30a(3)(b) June 4: Debated, amended and passed House, pp. 4889– 4890 DEPOSITS IN NEW YORK HARBOR. Mr. COX. I ask unanimous consent that the Committee of the Whole on the state of the Union be discharged from the further consideration of Senate bill 1241, to prevent obstructive and injurious deposits in the harbor and adjacent waters of New York. A similar bill has been reported from the Committee on Commerce of this House, and I now ask unanimous consent that the Senate bill be substituted for the House bill and be put upon its passage. The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from New York? Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the point of order, for the purpose of trying to learn something about this bill. I do not want to object at this time, but I would like to know what committee reported this bill. Mr. COX. A bill for this purpose has been reported by my colleague [Mr. BRYCE] from the Committee on Commerce. Several times in several Congresses this measure substantially has been reported. The Senate bill which I ask to have substituted is almost identical with the House bill reported by my colleague. A bill almost similar with this-introduced by myself-passed this House in the Forty-seventh Congress. It was upon a river and harbor bill, and was eliminated from it in the Senate as being rather incongruous upon that bill. Mr. ROGERS. Has it passed the Senate? Mr. COX. It has. Mr. ROGERS. What committee reported it there? Mr. COX. The Committee on Commerce. Mr. ROGERS. Let me make another inquiry: What court has jurisdiction of the offenses described in the bill? Mr. SPINOLA. Any district court of the United States. Mr. COX. I will state for the information of the House that a Federal bill, like this, is rendered necessary, because these waters come within the jurisdiction of two States-New Jersey and New York; and unless we have Federal jurisdiction over them we can never protect the harbor from the continual dumping that is shoaling it to its ruin. The Committees on Commerce of the House and of the Senate have approved and reported this bill. Mr. BLANCHARD. In what respect does the Senate bill, which the gentleman proposes to substitute, differ from the House bill? Mr. COX. It does not differ except in the situation—the Senate has passed the bill and we have not. [p. 4889] The Mr. FARQUHAR. Does it not differ also in respect to the commission? original bill proposed a commission. The Senate bill puts the matter under the control of the supervisor of the harbor. Mr. COX. The House bill introduced by myself struck out the commission, and left the matter under the control of the supervisor of the harbor. He is to be under the control of the War Department, because the engineers have control of harbor improvements, and harmony of action is a desideratum. Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Speaker, the object of this bill is undoubtedly very laudable, and I am in favor of it so far as I understand the measure; but I think this is a most important matter and that we ought to hear the Senate bill read. I make that suggestion because of the great confusion that was in the Hall while the bill was being read. The SPEAKER pro tempore. It was the Senate bill that was read. Mr. ROGERS. Then I have got the wrong bill. I still reserve the point of order until I can hear further from the gentleman from New York. Mr. REED. What is the meaning of section 5? Mr. SPINOLA. Section 5 is wrong in the Senate bill. Mr. REED. Section 5 can not mean anything. Mr. COX. I desire to have the Senate bill pass. Mr. REED. But the Senate bill has a section, section 5, providing for the meetings of a board, and there is no board provided for in the bill. Mr. COX. That has been stricken out in the Senate. It has no place in the bill before us. It is a mistake. Mr. BLAND called for the regular order, but subsequently withdrew the call. Mr. SPINOLA. I ask that section 5 of the Senate bill be read. The Clerk read as follows: That a suitable office for the meetings of the board shall be provided in some building of the General Government in New York City or its vicinity. Mr. COX. That has been stricken out. Mr. BLANCHARD. Let the amendment relating to that section be read. The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk informs the Chair that there is no amendment relating to that section. Mr. COX. What we want is the Senate bill in its entirety. Mr. BLANCHARD. Does section 5 provide for a commission? Mr. COX. It does not. Mr. BLANCHARD. Then what is the meaning of the language which has been read? Several MEMBERS. It ought to be struck out. Mr. COX. I desire to move to strike out section 5 if it is in the bill. Mr. COX. I am aware of that. I ask unanimous consent that the Senate bill and this amendment be considered as pending. Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Speaker, what I am most interested in with reference to this bill is a point which has recently come before the Judiciary Committee of the House and has had a most careful consideration by it. It is the question whether or not Congress has constitutional power to confer upon the courts of the United States criminal jurisdiction over the inland waters of the country. If we have complete jurisdiction it must extend, I take it, to every navigable river of the United States upon which there is any interstate commerce. It certainly goes this far, if it does not extend to all the navigable waters. Now, I regard this as an exceedingly doubtful power. Our Government has now been in existence a hundred years, and we have never until the present Congress undertaken to exercise criminal jurisdiction over the Great Lakes. Mr. COX. This bill has reference to maritime cases-to Federal waters. Mr. ROGERS. I am referring to criminal jurisdiction. The maritime jurisdiction of the United States extends over the Great Lakes, of course. Several MEMBERS. No doubt of that. Mr. COX. This bill only proposes to extend jurisdiction over tide-water. Mr. ROGERS. But you say "the harbor of New York or its adjacent or tributary waters or those of Long Island Sound." Mr. COX. Those are tide-waters. The tide runs nearly a hundred miles up the Hudson, certainly as far as Poughkeepsie. Mr. ROGERS. I do not profess to be very familiar with the geography of that part of the country, and upon the assurance of the gentleman from New York I withdraw my objection to the consideration of the bill. There being no objection, the House proceeded to the consideration of the bill. Mr. COX. I move to amend by striking out section 5. The amendment was agreed to. The SPEAKER pro tempore. Several amendments to this bill have been reported by the Committee on Commerce. The amendments reported by the Committee on Commerce were read, as follows: After the word "waters," in line 8, section 1, insert "or in those of Long Island Sound." At the end of section 1, add "one-half of said fine to be paid to the person or persons giving information which shall lead to conviction of this misdemeanor." |