SENATE { 72D CONGRESS 1st Session } REPORT No. 497 BRIDGE ACROSS ST. LAWRENCE RIVER AT OR NEAR · HOGANSBURG, N. Y. MARCH 23 (calendar day, APRIL 1), 1932.-Ordered to be printed Mr. VANDENBERG, from the Committee on Commerce, submitted the following REPORT [To accompany H. R. 483] The Committee on Commerce, to whom was referred the bill (H. R. 483) to amend the act of March 2, 1897, authorizing the construction and maintenance of a bridge across the St. Lawrence River, having considered the same, report favorably thereon and recommend that the bill do pass without amendment. The bill has the approval of the Departments of State and War and Agriculture, as will appear by the annexed House of Representatives Report No. 287, which is made a part of this report, together with supplemental exhibits which appear to remove prior partial objections originally urged against the measure. [House Report No. 287, Seventy-second Congress, first session] The Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce, to whom was referred the bill (H. R. 483) to amend the act of March 2, 1897, authorizing the construction and maintenance of a bridge across the St. Lawrence River, having considered the same, report thereon with a recommendation that it pass. Hon. Bertrand H. Snell, who introduced this bill, has submitted the following information with reference thereto: Hon. JACOB L. MILLIGAN, HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, Washington, D. C., January 26, 1932. House of Representatives, Washington, D. C. MY DEAR COLLEAGUE: H. R. 483 introduced by me is for the purpose of amending the act of March 2, 1897, authorizing the construction and maintenance of a bridge across the St. Lawrence River. The only changes in the act are on pages 2 and 3. The amendment is in lines 23, 24, 25, page 2, and lines 1 and 2, page 3, down to and including the word "lease." This is the only change from the original act. The situation is this: The New York Central Railroad built this bridge about thirty-odd years ago. At that time they had considerable business over this branch of the railroad, but at the present time this branch only runs up through the Adirondacks to Tupper Lake and comes to a dead end and there is practically no business whatever and I believe they only run two trains a day across this railroad bridge. There is no vehicular bridge across the St. Lawrence River from Montreal to Niagara Falls, a distance of about 400 miles. The villages of Malone, United States, and Cornwall, in Canada, have made arrangements to lease this bridge from the New York Central Railroad at a merely nominal rental. They are organizing a company of citizens in these two villages with $150,000 capital for the purpose of planking this bridge and using it for vehicular and foot traffic under a lease made to them by the New York Central. When the lawyers examined the original act they found there was no provision in the act to grant the lessee to collect the tolls for this vehicular bridge that were granted in the original act to the New York Central Railroad and the only purpose for this amendment is simply to grant these two communities the right to do in the way of collecting tolls for a vehicular bridge what was granted in the original act to the railroad. I can see no objection that anyone could have to this amendment. It is agreeable to the railroad owning the property and to the people in the two communities that are making the lease for the purpose above stated. I trust there will be no opposition in the committee and we can get early action on the bill, because the matter has been held up now for about six months awaiting the action of Congress in this matter. Thanking you for your early attention, I am, BERT. SNELL. The bill has the approval of the State and War Departments, and the partial approval of the Agriculture Department, as will appear by the following letters: DEPARTMENT OF STATE, Washington, December 24, 1931. The Hon. SAM RAYBURN, House of Representatives. SIR: In reply to your letter of December 16, 1931, inclosing bill H. R. 483, Seventy-second Congress, first session, with the request for a report thereon in duplicate, you are advised that in so far as the interest intrusted to this department is concerned there is no objection to the proposed legislation. Very truly yours, H. L. STIMSON. WAR DEPARTMENT, December 23, 1931. 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. 483, 72d Cong., 1st sess.) to amend the act of March 2, 1897, authorizing the construction and maintenance of a bridge across the St. Lawrence River. Hon. SAM RAYBURN, PATRICK J. HURLEY, DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, Chairman Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce, House of Representatives. Dear Mr. RaYBURN: Careful consideration has been given to the bill (H. R. 483) transmitted with your letter of December 16 with request for a report thereon and such views relative thereto as the department might desire to communicate. This bill would amend section 1 of an act approved March 2, 1897 (29 Stat. 603), entitled "An act to authorize the construction and maintenance of a bridge across the St. Lawrence River." The proposed amendment would authorize the Northern New York Railroad Co., a New York corporation, or such railway or bridge company now or hereafter incorporated under the laws of said State or of the Dominion of Canada as the said Northern New York Railroad Co. or its assigns may unite with, to construct, own, maintain, and operate a bridge and approaches thereto across the St. Lawrence River, from a point at or near the village of Hogansburg, Franklin County, State of New York, to a point on the island of Cornwall near the town of Cornwall, in the county of Cornwall, and Stormont, Province of Ontario. Said amendment would further authorize such bridge to be constructed for the passage of railway trains, with the option of constructing it as a combination railroad and highway bridge, with the right to charge reasonable rates of toll for the passage thereover of vehicles, animals, and foot passengers. The location indicated for the proposed bridge is not on the system of Federalaid highways approved for New York, but a route on said system passes through Hogansburg so that the proposed bridge would constitute a lateral connection therewith. The department seriously questions the advisability of authorizing a combination railroad and highway bridge at this point, as such bridges frequently result in serious congestion, particularly to the highway traffic. Furthermore, the pending bill would grant authority for the construction of the bridge to some undetermined agency since it provides for such construction by the Northern New York Railroad Co., or such railway or bridge company now or hereafter incorporated as the said Northern New York Railroad Co. or its assigns may become affiliated with. The department, therefore, recommends that the bill be amended to specifically designate the agency to which it will grant authority for the construction of the bridge, and also that the provision authorizing the construction of a highway and railway bridge be so modified as to restrict the authority to the construction of the railway bridge. If the construction of a highway bridge across the St. Lawrence River at the point proposed is necessary at this time, from the standpoint of highway traffic, it is believed that it should be constructed separate and apart from any railroad bridge which may be undertaken. Sincerely yours, R. W. DUNLAP, Acting Secretary. In compliance with paragraph 2a of Rule XIII of the Rules of the House of Representatives, changes in existing law made by the bill are shown as follows: Existing law proposed to be omitted is inclosed in black brackets; new matter is printed in italics; existing law in which no change is proposed is shown in roman. "The Northern New York Railroad Company, a corporation organized and created under and by virtue of the laws of the State of New York, or such railway or bridge company now or hereafter incorporated under the laws of said State or of the Dominion of Canada as the said Northern New York Railroad Company or its assigns may unite with, be, and it hereby is, authorized and empowered to construct, own, maintain, and operate a bridge and approaches thereto across the Saint Lawrence River, from a point on the right or southerly bank thereof at or near the village of Hogansburg, in the county of Franklin, in the State of New York, to a point on the island of Cornwall near the town of Cornwall, in the county of [Cornwall] Cornwall, and Stormont, Province of Ontario, in the Dominion of Canada, at such point as may be most convenient to said corporation to unite and connect the railroad built or to be built by it in the said State of New York with any railroad or bridge that may be constructed by any person or corporation in the said Dominion of Canada. Said bridge shall be constructed to provide for the passage of railway trains and, at the option of the said corporation, may be used for the passage of vehicles, animals, and foot passengers upon such reasonable rates of toll as may be fixed and from time to time revised by the Secretary of War of the United States.] States; the bridge may be equipped for use for the passage of vehicles, animals, and foot passengers by the lessee under a lease made by the corporation, and the tolls for such passage, as fixed and revised by the Secretary of War as aforesaid, may be collected by the lessee under such lease. Said bridge when completed shall be deemed and taken to be a lawful structure, and shall be recognized and known as a post route for the United States mails: Provided, That before the construction of the said bridge shall be begun all proper and requisite authority therefor shall be obtained from the Government of the Dominion of Canada." Hon. HIRAM W. JOHNSON, DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, Chairman Committee on Commerce, United States Senate. DEAR SENATOR: Reference is made to H. R. 483 which passed the House February 1, 1932, and is understood to be pending in your committee. This bill proposes to amend section 1 of the act entitled "An act to authorize the construction and maintenance of a bridge across the St. Lawrence River," approved March 2, 1897 (29 Stat. 603). The section would be amended by adding new language beginning with line 23, page 2, of the bill and ending with the word "lease," line 2, page 3, which new language reads as follows: the bridge may be equipped for use for the passage of vehicles, animals, and foot passengers by the lessee under a lease made by the corporation, and the tolls for such passage, as fixed and revised by the Secretary of War as aforesaid, may be collected by the lessee under such lease.” Under date of December 24, 1931, this department submitted a report upon the bill to the Chairman of the House Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce, a copy of which report is understood to be on file with your committee. The department is now advised informally by Mr. Snell, the author of the bill, that the sole purpose of the amendment is to authorize the railroad company which constructed or now owns or controls the bridge to lease it to the adjacent community, or communities, or to public agencies thereof, with the view of their equipping the bridge for highway traffic and operating it for that purpose, collecting tolls therefor. The department is likewise advised that the bridge at present is not equipped for highway traffic and that its use for railroad traffic is now negligible. In view of the foregoing, it does not appear that there should be any objection to the amendment proposed by the pending bill. The department, therefore, withdraws the objections to the bill indicated in its report of December 24, 1931, to the House committee. Sincerely, C. F. MARVIN, Acting Secretary. Hon. ARTHUR H. VANDENBERG, United States Senate, Washington, D. C. UNITED STATES SENATE, Washington, D. C., April 1, 1932. DEAR SENATOR VANDENBERG: Permit me to write you regarding H. R. 483. This is a bill to permit a group of Massena and Cornwall business men to plank a railroad bridge across the St. Lawrence River between Nyando, N. Y., and Cornwall, Ontario. This will be the only vehicular bridge between Montreal and Niagara Falls. You can readily understand, therefore, how important it is to northern New York and the entire State. Indeed, I am strongly urged by the Northern Federation of Chambers of Commerce and the Chambers of Commerce of Massena and Malone, and many citizens of northern New York, to have the bill expedited. If it is to be done at all, early legislation is needed in order that the work may be completed this year. As you know, the superintendent of the department of public works of New York State has been opposed to this bill. On his suggestion I wrote to Senator Charles J. Hewitt, of the New York State Senate, who is chairman of a special committee created by the Legislature of New York to treat with the Canadian Government with a view to the construction of a bridge across the St. Lawrence River. In reply Senator Hewitt said: "After several conferences, it is very evident that the Dominion of Canada or the Province of Quebec or Ontario will not cooperate with the State of New York in the construction of a bridge across the St. Lawrence, at least for several years to come." In addition Senator Hewitt said regarding the purpose of this bill: “I am satisfied that unless something of this kind is done there will be no bridge across the St. Lawrence River which will provide for vehicles and pedestrians." He adds: "My observation as chairman of this special committee leads me to the opinion that this bridge or any other bridge across the St. Lawrence River would be of great convenience to the people of the State of New York." After considerable correspondence with Colonel Greene, whom I admire greatly, I finally told him that I felt that the interests of our State would be furthered by the building of the bridge. In a letter written me on the 26th of March, the Colonel says, "As for the St. Lawrence River bridge, I am not keenly opposed to this proposition.' I realize, of course, that if he could have his way, he feels it would be better to carry out an established policy regarding such bridges. However, while I could not truthfully say he is supporting the pending bill, I can say he is not opposing it. It is my opinion that this bill should be enacted, and the bridge permitted to go forward at once. I so recommend. Cordially yours, O ROYAL S. COPELAND. |