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. MARCH 23 (calendar day, APRIL 1), 1932.-Ordered to be printed Mr. MCKELLAR, from the Committee on Post Offices and Post Roads, submitted the following REPORT [To accompany H. R. 96] The Senate Committee on Post Offices and Post Roads, having had under consideration H. R. 96, to punish the sending through the mails of certain threatening communications, reports the bill with a recommendation that it do pass. Similar bills were introduced in the Senate and the House of Representatives to curb the growing practice of using the mails for sending to intended victims demands for money and dire threats of confinement or death for members of his family unless the demands were promptly met. Information reaching your committee from widely separated sections of the country indicates that the mails are almost invariably used for communicating such threats. Your committee believes that the penalties fixed in the bill as passed by the House of Representatives are not too severe for this incredible crime. The report of the House Committee on the Post Office and Post Roads reads as follows: [House Report No. 692, Seventy-second Congress, first session] The Committee on the Post Office and Post Roads, having had under consideration the bill (H. R. 96) to punish the sending through the mails of certain threatening communications, reports the same back to the House with the following amendments: Page 2, in line 8, strike out "$1,000" and insert in lieu thereof "$5,000." Page 2, in line 9, strike out "five" and insert in lieu thereof "twenty." So amended, the committee recommends that the bill do pass. Hearings were held by your committee on measures referred to it providing punishment for depositing extortion communications in the mails, and at these hearings the need for such legislation was forcibly brought out by the proponents of the bills. Since these hearings, a new outrage has been perpetrated in the kidnaping of the son of the famous aviator, Charles A. Lindbergh, and our mail system used to convey the threats and demands of the kidnapers. This latest fiendish act has so impressed our committee that it is deemed advisable while the Congress and the country are in a state of preparation to report this legislation when its chances of consideration and approval are excellent, and for the added purpose that it will bring to the assistance of the States and localities the aid of the Federal Government in stamping out this most atrocious form of crime. The crime of kidnaping, which seems to be on the increase, is more injurious in its effects on both the victim and the families involved than any other crime on the calendar of offenses, and our action is both timely and imperative. Prior to 1926 the Government was successful in most jurisdictions in prosecuting so-called blackmail cases where the use of the mails was concerned under the postal criminal fraud section 216 of the penal code. About that time one of these cases went to the Supreme Court of the United States, and that court held that these schemes did not come within the scope of that statute. At that time the Post Office Department recommended to Congress, also to the Department of Justice, that a law be enacted that would at least give the authority it thought it had before in covering these schemes of so-called blackmail. The bill selected by the committee, H. R. 96, for reporting back to the House, provides punishment for the depositing of extortion communications in the United States mails to the extent of a fine of not more than $1,000 or imprisonment of not more than five years. Your committee believes that this penalty is not drastic enough, and recommends increasing it to a fine of not more than $5,000 or imprisonment of not more than 20 years. Below appears a print of a portion of the bill with the committee's amendments in italics and the deleted portions in brackets: Portion of H. R. 96 amended by committee (amendments in italics; deleted parts in brackets)— shall be fined not more than [$1,000] $5,000 or imprisoned not more than [five] twenty years: The Post Office Department's report on the proposed legislation reads as follows: Hon. JAMES M. MEAD, POST OFFICE DEPARTMENT, Washington, D. C., January 14, 1932. Chairman Committee on the Post Office and Post Roads, House of Representatives. MY DEAR MR. MEAD: I have your letter of the 7th instant, transmitting for my views thereon copies of H. R. 96, H. R. 4537, and H. R. 6006, to punish the sending through the mails of certain threatening communications. The provisions of H. R. 96 and H. R. 6006 are the same with the exception of the amount of the fine, which in the former is $1,000 and in the latter $5,000. Either measure would be satisfactory to this department. The language of H. R. 4537 appears in some respects to be too broad and indefinite. It is believed that its main purpose would be achieved by enacting H. R. 96 or H. R. 6006. Furthermore, it is doubtful whether the Congress has authority to legislate concerning threatening matter deposited in a privately owned house letter box when such matter is not United States mail. A penalty is provided by 18 United States Code 241 for attempting to influence, intimidate, or impede any witness or grand or petit juror in any court of the United States by means of a threatening letter or communication. The provisions of 8 United States Code 47 (2) provide a penalty for, among other things, conspiring by means of force, intimidation, or threat, to prevent a witness from attending court and truthfully testifying, or to prevent a grand or petit juror from properly performing his duty. These laws, which are very broad and penalize attempts to intimidate or coerce other officers of the court, would seem to render unnecessary the enactment of similar provisions in H. R. 4537. Very truly yours, WALTER F. Brown. The citations mentioned in the department's letter read as follows: 18 U. S. Code, 241-act of March 4, 1909; 35 Stat. 1113: "SEC. 135. Whoever corruptly, or by threats or force, or by any threatening letter or communication, shall endeavor to influence, intimidate, or impede any witness, in any court of the United States or before any United States commis |