In this same sentence it is proposed to strike out after the word "elect" the words "from their number" and insert in lieu thereof the words "from among the policyholders."

The present requirement is contrary to the common practice. In view of the growth of the company's business and its extension throughout the United States it is not practical and may not be to the best interests of the policyholders.

In the same sentence, after the words "annual meeting," it is proposed to strike out the words "of the members" and insert the words "of the company."

This conforms to the preceding change.

In the same sentence, after the word "president," it is proposed to strike out the words "of the association and a" and insert in lieu thereof a comma after the word "president" and the words "one or more" and to strike out in the same sentence the words "vice president" and insert in lieu thereof the words "vice presidents."

This change is proposed so that the organization can elect one or more vice presidents.

It is further proposed to strike out of the same sentence the words "and shall elect from the members of the association."

This conforms to the preceding changes.

In the fourth sentence of this section, it is proposed to strike out the words "vice president" and insert in lieu thereof the words "vice presidents."

This change is necessary because of the prior proposed changes.

Sec. 4: It is proposed to insert after the words "that the" and before the word "directors" the words "board of".

The action referred to must be taken by the directors acting as a board. It is also proposed to insert in the same sentence after the word "proper" the words "for the elections herein provided, and".

Life insurance companies generally issue policies of insurance on the lives of children and on joint lives, and issue policies of group insurance and reinsurance. It is impractical if not impossible to attempt to anticipate conditions which may arise in these and other developments of the life insurance business, and necessary provisions must be made from time to time with regard to the rights of such policyholders.

72D CONGRESS 1st Session

}

SENATE

{

REPORT No. 422

EXTENSION OF IMPROVEMENTS ON WEST SIDE OF GEORGIA AVENUE IN THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

MARCH 11 (calendar day, MARCH 12), 1932.-Ordered to be printed

Mr. CAPPER, from the Committee on the District of Columbia, submitted the following

REPORT

[To accompany H. R. 361]

The Committee on the District of Columbia, to whom was referred the bill (H. R. 361) to provide for the extension of improvements on the west side of Georgia Avenue, north of Princeton Place, in the District of Columbia, and for other purposes, having considered the same, reports favorably thereon, with the recommendation that the bill do pass.

PURPOSE OF THE BILL

The bill simply permits the owner of a lot on Georgia Avenue to use a strip of land 3.64 feet in width, in front of the present lot, for the purpose of constructing a new building there.

The use of the strip will bring the proposed building in line with the front wall of adjacent existing structures. Many years ago this inconsiderable portion of land was dedicated to the District of Columbia, at the request of their authorities, as it was intended to establish a building line at that point. That project, however, was abandoned in favor of a building line later established exactly 3.64 feet in front of the lot in question.

By this bill, the District gives back the strip to the owner, and renders it subject to taxation.

The committee was informed orally by representatives of the District Government, at a hearing on the bill, that the commissioners recommend favorable action on the proposed legislation. This recommendation is expressed in writing in a letter by the commissioners to the chairman of the House Committee on the District of Columbia, which is contained in the House committee's report on the bill, appended hereto as part of this report.

[House Report No. 395, Seventy-second Congress, first session,

The Committee on the District of Columbia, to whom was referred the bill (H. R. 361) to provide for the extension of improvements on the west side of Georgia Avenue, north of Princeton Place, in the District of Columbia, and for other purposes, having considered the same, reports favorably thereon with the recommendation that the bill do pass.

The facts in connection with this proposed legislation show that only 3.64 feet cover the area sought to be changed. The property is located in the northwest corner of Georgia Avenue and Princeton Place, Washington, D. C., being lot 14, square 2897. It was improved by a one-story building in February, 1906, which was constantly rented until June, 1929, when the property on the north was improved out to the building line of this block, which is 3.64 feet beyond the front line of lot 14. The building on lot 14 was then vacated by the tenant. The improvements on lot 14 are now obsolete. The owner offered to improve this lot with a modern building. He has received several offers to rent same on condition that the new building be on a line with the other buildings in this block, but this can not be done without an act of Congress, as the owner dedicated this 3.64 feet to the District of Columbia at the request of the District authorities, as it was intended in 1906 to establish a building line at this point. This intention was later abandoned and a line established 3.64 feet beyond the front of lot 14.

This bill has the approval of the Commissioners of the District of Columbia, as indicated by their letter, copy of which is hereto appended and made a part of this report.

COMMISSIONERS OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA,
Washington, December 18, 1931.

Hon. MARY T. NORTON,
Chairman Committee on the District of Columbia,

House of Representatives, Washington, D. C.

MY DEAR MRS. NORTON: The Commissioners of the District of Columbia submit the following report on H. R. 361, Seventy-second Congress, first session, entitled "A bill to provide for the extension of improvements on the west side of Georgia Avenue, north of Princeton Place, in the District of Columbia, and for other purposes, " which you referred to them for their consideration. The object of this bill is to permit the owner of lot 14, square 2897 to use for building purposes a strip of land in front of said lot so that the front face of the front wall of the building or improvements so erected shall be in a direct line with the front face of the front wall of the building immediately north thereof, located on lot 835, square 2897.

When lot 14 and other lots on Georgia Avenue south of Princeton Place were created, the proprietors dedicated back to what was called the 90-foot line of Georgia Avenue, since which time the courts have held that the commissioners could not enforce a 90-foot line and that the lots extended to what is known as the 66-foot line. The building on lots 825 and 835 of square 2897 extends about 3 feet beyond the 90-foot line, and the purpose of this bill is to permit the owner of lot 14 to erect his building on a line with the existing building on lots 825 and 835. The commissioners do not see that any public interest would suffer by the enactment of this bill and they, therefore, recommend favorable action.

Mr. NORRIS, from the Committee on Agriculture and Forestry, submitted the following

REPORT

[To accompany S. J. Res. 15]

The Senate Committee on Agriculture and Forestry, to which was referred the joint resolution (S. J. Res. 15) to provide for the national defense by the creation of a corporation for the operation of the Government properties at and near Muscle Shoals in the State of Alabama, to authorize the letting of the Muscle Shoals properties under certain conditions, and for other purposes, having had the same under consideration, beg leave to report it back to the Senate with the recommendation that said joint resolution do pass.

This resolution is the same as was agreed upon in conference in the Seventy-first Congress. The first 24 sections, with some slight changes made in conference, constitute the resolution as it passed the Senate at that time. Sections 25 to 28, inclusive, constitute the matter which was added to the resolution by the conference committee. These added sections, in effect, give to the President of the United States authority, for 12 months after the passage of the act, to lease the nitrate plants and other properties connected therewith to any person or corporation for a term of 50 years upon conditions set out in said added sections. It is provided therein that all the provisions of the act conflicting with the right to make such lease shall be suspended and that if within the 12-month period the President makes a lease of the property as authorized, then such suspension shall continue during the entire time such lease is in effect. It is also provided that if no lease is made within 12 months after the passage of the act, then sections 25, 26, and 27 shall, at the end of 12 months, become null and void and all the other provisions which have been suspended for said period shall at once go into effect.

These provisions providing for a lease of the nitrate properties were put in by way of compromise. It has been contended for many years by those who were in favor of leasing the Muscle Shoals prop

erty, that, if the nitrate properties could be operated by private parties under lease, cheap fertilizer could be produced and, as a result of such lease, agriculture would get the benefit of a less expensive fertilizer.

The committee is unanimously in favor of any proposition which will bring about a reduction in the price of fertilizer to agriculture, and these added provisions were put into the bill by the conference committee with the idea of testing the good faith of those who have been claiming for 10 years that, if private parties were given an opportunity to operate the nitrate plants, it would be demonstrated in this way that these nitrate plants could be used in the production of fertilizer and that agriculture would get the benefit of a greatly reduced price.

During the last eight years, many opportunities have been given to private persons and corporations to make bids for the operation of the Muscle Shoals nitrate plants, but no bid has ever been submitted which has been acceptable to Congress. It has always been found that all private persons and corporations making bids for the property have always demanded concessions and provisions in a lease which, in effect, would constitute a bonus to the lessee in the operation of the nitrate plants for fertilizer purposes. In every bid which has been made, it has always been discovered that the proposition had somewhere, very beautifully concealed within itself, a joker which, when exposed, clearly showed that the object of the lease was to get possession of the power facilities at Muscle Shoals and that the lessee was using the fertilizer proposition only as a blind to gain possession for private profit of the enormous power facilities which exist at Muscle Shoals. It is fair to say that no fair proposition of lease has ever been made for the leasing of the Muscle Shoals property which contained, in good faith, a genuine proposition to use the power there for the primary purpose of making cheap fertilizer for the farmer.

Nation-wide propaganda has been going on more or less continuously during the last eight years, the object of which has been to deceive the farmer and make him believe that a private lease of the Muscle Shoals property would demonstrate methods of cheapening the production of fertilizer. Behind this propaganda was always the real intent of getting possession of Muscle Shoals under the guise of a fertilizer proposition but with the intent and purpose of utilizing the power produced at Muscle Shoals for the private profit and gain of the lessee.

Every proposition of lease so far made has always had within it a limitation of fertilizer produced by which practically no fertilizer would be produced. The fertilizer provisions in such contemplated leases were always emphasized as much as possible, but the real intent was always discovered to be, not the production of fertilizer, but, in truth and in fact, the gaining of possession of the Muscle Shoals property in order to use power either for the manufacture of chemicals or other products not connected in any way with fertilizer or for the sale to private power companies of the power which can be produced at Muscle Shoals when it is fully developed.

The conference committee put in these provisions and the Senate passed the bill with these provisions in it in the Seventy-first Congress, which, in effect, provided that the President should have 12 months to lease the nitrate properties on practically any conditions and terms