72D CONGRESS 1st Session } SENATE { REPORT No. 197 TO TRANSFER LAVACA COUNTY, TEX., FROM THE HOUSTON DIVISION TO THE VICTORIA DIVISION FEBRUARY 5 (calendar day, FEBRUARY 9), 1932.—Ordered to be printed Mr. BORAH, from the Committee on the Judiciary, submitted the following REPORT [To accompany H. R. 6304] The Committee on the Judiciary, having had under consideration the bill (H. R. 6304) to transfer Lavaca County from the Houston division to the Victoria division of the southern judicial district of Texas, reports the same favorably to the Senate and recommends that the bill do pass. The desirability of this legislation is made apparent by the following excerpt from House Report No. 34, which report accompanied this bill in the House of Representatives: This bill transfers Lavaca County from the Houston division to the Victoria division of the southern district of Texas. The bill is recommended by 10 of the 13 members of the Lavaca County bar, as well as the attorney general, who, in a communication to the chairman of the committee, Hon. Hatton W. Sumners, on December 29, 1931, said: "All points in Lavaca County are nearer to Victoria' than to Houston and it would undoubtedly be of advantage to the Government, as well as to litigants residing in Lavaca County, to attend court in Victoria rather than in Houston." In accordance with Rule XIII as amended, there is printed below in brackets new language: that part of the law which is repealed by this bill, and showing in italics the "The southern district shall include the territory embraced on July 1, 1910, in the counties of Brazos, Colorado, Fayette, Grimes, Harris, [Lavaca], Madison, Montgomery, Polk, San Jacinto, Trinity, Walker, and Waller, which shall constitute the Houston' division; also the territory embraced on May 29, 1912, in the counties of Calhoun, De Witt, Goliad, Jackson, Lavaca, Refugio, and Victoria, which shall constitute the Victoria division * " 2 Whereas the history and traditions of our people have since then sustained and consecrated the name of Puerto Rico, given to our island, as its sole name; Whereas immediately following the change of sovereignty which took place in the island, the Congress of the United States of America, without justifying reasons, officially gave this island the name of Porto Rico; Whereas the aforesaid name of Porto Rico is an impure idiomatic compound partly formed of the foreign word porto, which, although of Latin origin, has not yet been adopted into our language, but is here used illegitimately to substitute the word puerto, genuinely Spanish, though no license, reasons of diction, or advantages of euphony exist to warrant such substitution; Whereas there are no reasons either in the history, the language, or the traditions of our people supporting the legitimacy of the foreign term porto which officially forms part of the name of our island; Now therefore be it Resolved by the Senate of Porto Rico, the House of Representatives concurring: 1. To request the Congress of the United States of America, and the same is hereby requested, officially to restore to our island its true name of Puerto Rico in place of Porto Rico as it is now called, because it is considered that full justice will thus be done to our history, our language, and our traditions. 2. That for the proper purposes, a copy of this resolution be forwarded to the Congress of the United States of America; to the Hon. Herbert Hoover, President, and to our Resident Commissioner, Hon. Felix Cordova Davila. For transmittal to His Excellency Herbert Hoover, President of the United States of America, as provided in the second paragraph of said resolution, I have hereunto set my hand and caused to be affixed the seal of the Senate of Porto Rico at San Juan, P. R., on this 6th day of May, 1930, A. D. [SEAL.] JOSE MUÑOZ RIVERA, 72D CONGRESS 1st Session } SENATE { REPORT No. 197 TO TRANSFER LAVACA COUNTY, TEX., FROM THE HOUSTON DIVISION TO THE VICTORIA DIVISION FEBRUARY 5 (calendar day, FEBRUARY 9), 1932.-Ordered to be printed Mr. BORAH, from the Committee on the Judiciary, submitted the following REPORT [To accompany H. R. 6304] The Committee on the Judiciary, having had under consideration the bill (H. R. 6304) to transfer Lavaca County from the Houston division to the Victoria division of the southern judicial district of Texas, reports the same favorably to the Senate and recommends that the bill do pass. The desirability of this legislation is made apparent by the following excerpt from House Report No. 34, which report accompanied this bill in the House of Representatives: This bill transfers Lavaca County from the Houston division to the Victoria division of the southern district of Texas. The bill is recommended by 10 of the 13 members of the Lavaca County bar, as well as the attorney general, who, in a communication to the chairman of the committee, Hon. Hatton W. Sumners, on December 29, 1931, said: "All points in Lavaca County are nearer to Victoria' than to Houston and it would undoubtedly be of advantage to the Government, as well as to litigants residing in Lavaca County, to attend court in Victoria rather than in Houston." In accordance with Rule XIII as amended, there is printed below in brackets new language: that part of the law which is repealed by this bill, and showing in italics the "The southern district shall include the territory embraced on July 1, 1910, in the counties of Brazos, Colorado, Fayette, Grimes, Harris, [Lavaca], * Madison, Montgomery, Polk, San Jacinto, Trinity, Walker, and Waller, which shall constitute the Houston division; also the territory embraced on May 29, and in the counties of Calhoun, De Witt, Goliad, Jackson, Lavaca, Refugio, and Victoria, which shall constitute the Victoria division 72D CONGRESS 1st Session } SENATE { REPORT No. 198 OPENING AND CLOSING OF ROADS ON LAND OWNED BY THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA AT OCCOQUAN, VA. FEBRUARY 5 (calendar day, February 9), 1932.-Ordered to be printed Mr. CAPPER, from the Committee on the District of Columbia, submitted the following REPORT [To accompany S. 1768] The Committee on the District of Columbia, to whom was referred the bill (S. 1768) to provide for the opening and closing of roads within the boundaries of the District of Columbia workhouse property at Occoquan, Fairfax, Va., having considered the same, reports favorably thereon, with the recommendation that the bill do pass. The bill would permit the exchange of strips of land, used for road purposes, between the District of Columbia and the State of Virginia. The land in question is located on the District workhouse grounds at Occoquan. Enactment of the law will permit no question as to title of a new public road, while the District will gain through acquisition of part of the old road, which ground is needed for new workhouse buildings. State authorities are favorable to the transfer. The committee believes the transfer entirely advantageous to the District of Columbia and fair to the State of Virginia. The District Commissioners requested introduction and enactment of the bill in letters which are appended hereto, as part of this report. Hon. ARTHUR Capper, WASHINGTON, D. C., December 11, 1981: Chairman Committee on the District of Columbia, United States Senate. MY DEAR SENATOR CAPPER: The Commissioners of the District of Columbia have the honor to transmit herewith a draft of a bill to provide for the opening and closing of certain roads located within the boundaries of the workhouse property at Occoquan, Fairfax County, Va., which they request be introduced during the present session of Congress. The object of the proposed bill is to recognize the existing conditions as to the roads in question, as shown on the attached blue print. The enactment of this legislation would avoid the possibility of any future question being raised as to |