Page images
PDF
EPUB

of our divisions were to go over there, and among those divisions, this division which has charge of the distribution of the copies of the patents.

Mr. Byrns. Are there any other bureaus of the Interior Department in the present Patent Office Building?

Mr. WOOLARD. No, sir.
Mr. Byrns. It is occupied exclusively by the Patent Office ?

Mr. WOOLARD. Yes, sir. There are only some of the branches of the supply division of the Interior Department, but they are going up to the new building. The supplies will go out, and in time we will have the entire building.

Mr. Byrns. Some of the bureaus of the Interior Department were in that building.

Mr. WOOLARD. Only the Secretary's office. The Secretary vacated about 35 rooms, which have been used by the Patent Office. We have expanded a little bit, not as much as we wanted, because we intended to move six or eight divisions from the Patent Office Building to the Land Office Building across the street.

Mr. BYRNs. You must have been very congested if 35 rooms do not afford any relief! ?

Mr. WOOLARD. The working conditions were almost intolerable.

BINDING FOREIGN PATENTS.

The commissioner asked me to call another matter to the attention of the committee and to present this letter:

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR,
UNITED STATES PATENT OFFICE,

Washington, D. C., August 11, 1917.
Hon. John J. FITZGERALD,
Chairman Committee on Appropriations,

House of Representatives. MY DEAR Mr. FITZGERALD: The sundry civil act, approved June 12, 1917, contained an item as follows: "For binding in classified order one set of German patents now in the Patent Office Library, $20,000.”

It is now found that the work of binding this set of German patents can probably be completed at a cost of not exceeding $14,000. This has been brought about by reducing somewhat the cost of materials used and changing the manner of binding.

There are now in the Patent Office classified sets of foreign patents by other countries, particularly Austria, and it is desired that the appropriation be modified so as to permit of the use of the unexpended balance for binding in classified order the patents of foreign countries, other than German. Yours, very truly,

THOMAS EWING, Commissioner of Patents.

.

That appropriation was made in the act of June 12, I think, based upon a careful estimate by the Public Printer that the work could be done for $20,000. His first estimate was $32,000. We reduced that to $20,000 and secured the appropriation. Now, the matter has been further discussed with the Public Printer and we find that the binding can be simplified, material a little less expensive used, and the volumes made a little bit larger, so that it will reduce the cost of binding to about $14,000. We have in the office other foreign patents which are just as much in demand as the German patents, the Austrian, Norwegian, and French patents. They are loose and it

is very difficult to keep track of them in that state. The commissioner would like to have that appropriation modified so that he can use it for binding foreign patents, without specifying particularly the German patents.

Mr. SHERLEY. And he wants the $6,000 for that purpose ?

Mr. WOOLARD. Yes, sir. It will be a great accommodation to the public and to the office if we can get them put in that permanent form. It is difficult to keep track of the loose copies. What we ask is merely a modification of an existing appropriation and not a new appropriation.

MONDAY, AUGUST 13, 1917.

TERRITORY OF ALASKA.

STATEMENT OF HON. CHARLES A. SULZER, THE DELEGATE IN

CONGRESS FROM THE TERRITORY OF ALASKA.

AND POST

ROADS IN

CONSTRUCTION AND MAINTENANCE OF MILITARY

ALASKA

a

Mr. SHERLEY. Mr. Sulzer, you wanted to make a statement before the committee in connection with some suggested legislation to the effect that “hereafter, so long as the construction and maintenance of military and post roads in Alaska, and other roads, bridges, and trails in that Territory, shall remain under the direction of the Secretary of War, he be authorized to submit such estimates for the consideration of Congress as are in his judgment necessary for a proper prosecution of the work.” Now, if you will just state what you desire to accomplish by this legislation and the reason for it, we will be glad to hear you.

Mr. SULZER. Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the committee, I would like to say that there is not anything of more importance to the people of Alaska than the construction of roads and trails. We have a vast territory up there of 600,000 square miles, and the greater part of it, of course, is inaccessible to development. The moinent you get away from the riverways it is impossible to make much progress without roads and trails, and I have a great many very urgent requests to help in any way I possibly can to get the work of building roads and trails extended in Alaska.

Under the law, as originally passed, creating the Alaska Road Commission, in 1905 I believe it was, there was no provision made for any appropriations by Congress. The funds for this commission were to be obtained from what is known as the Alaska fund, which is collected by license taxes throughout Alaska, and a certaiv portion of that fund by this act was to be paid over to the Alaska Road Commission for the building of roads and trails in Alaska; but it became apparent at once that those funds were not sufficient to enable the commission to do any adequate work, and Congress supplemented those funds by making annual appropriations, and they were made in sums of from $100,000 to $150.000 up until last year without any objection being raised. But during the last Congress, in the House, when this item came in, in the Army appropriation bill, there was

objection made and it was ruled out upon a point of order to the effect that there never had been any authorization of estimates for these items. Therefore, if it is possible to have inserted that proviso in any deficiency bill which may be reported, simply authorizing the Secretary of War to make estimates for this work, we would certainly appreciate it very much, because it would prevent the point of order being raised in the future. Of course, in this particular instance the item was replaced in the Senate, but it seems to me that if this work is under the Secretary of War, and if the Alaska Road Commission is expected to perform this work the Secretary of War should be authorized to make estimates such as are required and needed, and that is all this language provides for.

Mr. SHERLEY. Mr. Sulzer, the language of your proviso would not really accomplish what you desire. If I understand you, what you desire is to make in order, under the rules of the House, appropriacions upon the Army bill for road work in Alaska?

Mr. SULZER. Yes, sir.

Mr. SHERLEY. An authorization of the Secretary of War to submit estimates would not be a sufficient authorization for appropriations to take care of the point of order. Of course, that is a matter of drafting detail, but that language, in order to accomplish what you desire, would have to be changed, and would practically result in legislation authorizing the expenditure in Alaska of sums in the way of road building. Did we not make provision in the good-roads law for road building in Alaska ?

Mr. Sulzer. No, sir; the only provision that I know anything about is the creation of the Alaska Road Commission.

Mr. Binxs. Was there not an appropriation of several million dollars for Alaska?

Mr. Sulzer. There was an appropriation of $500,000 this year in the Army appropriation bill.

Mr. Byrus. No; I mean in the law to which Mr. Sherley refers. Mr. SHERLEY. We are looking that up now. It may be that that

. law was confined to the States and did not embrace the Territory of Alaska. Of course, this is legislation that is partly within the domain of this committee, particularly in connection with a deficiency bill. It is a matter that more properly would belong to the Committee on Territories in the way of legislation. Then after they had legislated it might be that this committee would have consideration, or the Military Affairs Committee, of the appropriation.

Mr. Sulzer. Mr. Chairman, it does not appropriate any money. It simply authorizes the Secretary, if he sees fit, to submit an estimate to you.

Mr. SHERLEY. It will be subject to a point of order if we report it, because this committee has no legislative power at all. Of course, the proposed draft would not change the situation at all, because the Secretary now can submit estimates whether he is authorized to submit them or not.

Mr. SULZER. A point of order can be made against them.

Mr. SHERLEY. Yes. The language of the provision would have to be so changed as to authorize the expenditure of money. Then pursuant to that he would submit estimates, and then it would not be subject to a point of order. The difficulty that confronts this committee is a jurisdictional one, because this committee has no power to legislate, and except where legislation is clearly incident to an appropriation we do not attempt to, and even then we have to run the gantlet of any point of order that might be made on the floor.

Mr. SULZER. Yes.
Mr. SHERLEY. Section 8 of the good-roads law reads as follows:

SEC. 8. That there is hereby appropriated and made available until expended. out of any moneys in the National Treasury not otherwise appropriated, the sum of $1,000,000 for the fiscal year ending June thirtieth, nineteen hundred and seventeen, and each tiscal year thereafter, up to and including the fiscal year ending June thirtieth, nineteen hundred and twenty-six, in all $10,000,000, to be available until expended under the supervision of the Secretary of Agriculture, upon request from the proper officers of the State, Territory, or county for the survey, construction, and maintenance of roads and trails within or only partly within the national forests, when necessary for the use and development of resources upon which communities within and adjacent to the national forests are dependent: Provided, That the State, Territory, or county shall enter into a cooperative agreement with the Secretary of Agriculture for the survey, con struction, and maintenance of such roads or trails upon a basis equitable to both the State, Territory, or county, and the United States : And provided also, That the aggregate expenditures in any State, Territory, or county shall not exceed ten per centum of the value, as determined by the Secretary of Agriculture, of the timber and forage resources which are or will be available for income upon the national forest lands within the respective county or counties wherein the roads or trails will be constructed; and the Secretary of Agriculture shall make annual report to Congress of the amounts expended hereunder, $1,000,000.

Mr. SULZER. That simply provides, Mr. Chairman, for the construction of roads in the national forests.

Mr. SHERLEY. Well, practically, although there may be some lands adjacent to or incident to the development of the national forests.

Monday, August 13, 1917.

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE.

STATEMENTS OF MR. HARVEY D. JACOB AND MR. SETH SHEPARD,

ATTORNEYS.

JUDGMENT IN FAVOR OF THE STATE OF MASSACHUSETTS.

Mr. SHERLEY. There has been certified by the Court of Claims a judgment in favor of the State of Massachusetts for $886,389.68, being based upon premiums paid for coin with which to pay bonds issued for moneys borrowed and used to furnish State troops for United States service during the Civil War. The act that confers jurisdiction on the Court of Claims to adjudicate this claim directs the Court of Claims to determine the law and the facts and to report to Congress. Can you explain just why this claim is certified as a claim to be paid?

Mr. Jacob. The Court of Claims decided in the Fond du Lac Indian case--and the Supreme Court has also decided in a case that where the wording of the act was similar to this act that that gave the court general jurisdiction to render a judgment, and the Court of Claims took the same view of this case.

Mr. SHERLEY. Have you those citations?

Mr. JACOB. The Fond du Lac Indians against the United States (34 Ct. Cls., 426) and Irvin against the United States (127 U. S., 1:25).

Mr. SHERLEY. Did the Department of Justice undertake to come to a conclusion as to whether this judgment should be certified as a judgment to be paid by Congress?

Mr. Jacob. The Department of Justice, through the Solicitor General, who passes upon all appeals, and the Assistant Attorney General in charge of the bureau for the defense of suits, had the matter of an appeal to the Supreme Court under consideration for more than a month and decided not to appeal the case. That was certified to the Secretary of the Treasury, and as a result of that certification the only thing left for the Secretary to do was to certify the judgment for payment. That is the usual course, as I understand it. We attorneys, after we try cases in the Court of Claims and lose them, if we do, why, the question of appeal is ultimately determined by the Solicitor General, and we have nothing to do with appeals; but, as I say, that question was under consideration more than a month, and they decided that the chances of reversal were not sufficient to justify an appeal.

Mr. SHERLEY. Please state what was the judgment of the court, not the opinion?

Mr. Jacob. The judgment of the court was that the State of Massachusetts was entitled to recover from the United States this sum.

Mr. SHERLEY. Have you that judgment ! Mr. Jacob. I have the judgment and the opinion; yes, sir. (The judgment and the opinion of the Court of Claims follow :)

(Court of Claims of the United States. No. 33632. (Decided April 9, 1917.)

of Massachusetts v. The United States.)

The State

This case having been heard by the Court of Claims, the court, upon the evidence, makes the following

FINDINGS OF FACT:

I.

The act of Congress approvel July 16. 1916, conferring jurisdiction on the Court of Claims, provides as follows: "AX ACT CONFERRING JURISDICTION ON THE COURT OF CLAIMS TO ADJUDICATE

THE CLAIMS OF THE STATE OF MASSACHUSETTS.

"Be it enacted, etc., That the claim of the State of Massachusetts for premium paid for coin with which it paid the interest and principal of its bonds issued in the year eighteen hundred and sixty-one for money borrowed and nsed to furnish troops of the State for the service of the United States during the Civil War; and also its claim for interest, and premium paid for coin in payment of such interest, on bonds issued for money borrowed and expended at the request, during said war, of the President of the United States, in protecting the harbors and fortifying the coast, which claims were rejected by the Comptroller of the Treasury Department, be, and the same are hereby, referred to the Court of Claims for determination of the law and the facts and report to Congress. The evidence of the amount of said expenditures and of the computations of such premiums made by the accounting officers of the Treasury on file in said department, as furnished by the State, may be considered by the court so as to relieve the State of the necessity of again filing said evidence in

court."

« PreviousContinue »