« iepriekšējāTurpināt »
per day; and that there were, approximately, 3,300 cars (either loaded or partly loaded with explosives) at all times in movement or in transit on railroads in the United States.
To sum up, the reason for the passage of the law under consideration is that, after thorough investigation, the associated railroads of the United States feel the necessity for the law as an element in the protection which they are endeavoring to provide:
First. To the lives and property of citizens in transit, and to their own (railroad companies') property;
Second. To the lives of the employees of the transportation companies; and
Third. To the lives and property of citizens of the country whose residence or calling requires them to live or spend their time in prox. imity to the railroads.
The committee recommend that the following amendment be adopted: Provided, That this act shall not apply to small-arms ammunition shipped in packages weighing not over 20 pounds, and the contents of the package to be conspicuously marked on the outside thereof.
APPEAL CASES FROM THE DISTRICT COURT, ALASKA.
JANUARY 26, 1907.-Referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be printed.
Mr. SMITH, of Kentucky, from the Committee on the Judiciary, submitted the following
[To accompany H. R. 24747.]
The Committee on the Judiciary, to whom was referred House bill 24747, submit the following report and recommend the passage of the bill.
At present practically all appeals from the district court of Alaska must be heard at San Francisco. There is no direct communication between San Francisco and Alaska, so that the litigant in Alaska desiring to attend the court of appeals in San Francisco must pass through Seattle, both going and on his return, and travel at a very considerable expense about 2,000 miles farther than he would if the case were heard at Seattle.
There is now annually held at Seattle a term of the circuit court, and to hear such appeals there, as the best interests of the Alaska litigants might require, would be of little inconvenience to the court. It is the almost universal desire of the members of the bar and of the business interests of Alaska that some provision should be made so that Alaska appeals will not have to be heard in San Francisco except in cases where the circumstances justify it. It is claimed by the attorneys of Alaska that if their appeals could be heard in Seattle that it would enable them in many cases to attend to them in person, whereas at present they are compelled to employ San Francisco attorneys to represent them in the court of appeals. It is the opinion of your committee that great and unnecessary expense and inconvenience is in many cases at present imposed upon Alaska litigants that would be relieved by the passage of this bill. The Members of the House of Representatives from the Pacific coast agree that this bill should become a law.
AMENDING SECTION 2536, REVISED STATUTES.
JANUARY 26, 1907.-Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union and ordered to be printed.
Mr. PAYNE, from the Committee on Ways and Means, submitted the following
[To accompany S. 7147.]
The Committee on Ways and Means, to whom was referred the bill (S. 7147) entitled "An act to amend section twenty-five hundred and thirty-six of the Revised Statutes, relative to assistant appraisers at the port of New York, and further defining their powers, duties, and compensation," having had the same under consideration, report it back without amendment with a recommendation that the bill do pass. This bill seeks to create two additional assistant appraisers at the port of New York, thus making twelve altogether, and the bill also confers certain powers and duties upon the appraiser and the Secretary of the Treasury in respect to the designation of a special deputy appraiser and two deputy appraisers to perform certain duties.
The following tables present a comparative statement of the enormous transactions in the office of the appraiser at New York for the fiscal year ended June 30, 1906, and for the calendar year ended December 31, 1906, respectively, as compared with the same periods for the years 1904 and 1905, from which it will be observed as to the fiscal year ended June 30, 1906, that the total appraised value of merchandise was $736,562,742.14, and for the calendar year ended December 31, 1906, the appraised value of merchandise examined and appraised was $787,652,456.43:
Number of public-store packages examined:
Appraised value of merchandise:
Advances upon appraisement and additions on entry to make market value:
Catendar year 1906.
Number of invoices and appraisement orders:
Number of public store packages examined:
Appraised value of merchandise:
Additions by importers on entry and advances on appraisement to make market value:
748, 836 748, 192 795, 466
$605, 994, 036. 67 $679, 446, 926.00 $736, 562, 742. 14
$1,790, 034. 63 $2,053, 334. 05 $2,718, 546. 42
386, 950 407, 032 444, 628
Hon. NELSON W. ALDRICH,
Chairman Committee on Finance, United States Senate.
747, 103 806, 734
$632, 336, 211.40 $705, 011, 487. 19 $787, 652, 456. 43
$1,797, 103. 93 $2, 426, 779. 71 $2,907, 025. 83
In view of the enormous and constantly increasing volume of business in said office, it is necessary for the proper and expeditious dispatch thereof that the appraiser should have the additional assistance as provided for in the bills herein before specified.
Under date of December 21, 1906, the Secretary of the Treasury, in a communication to the chairman of the Committee on Finance of the Senate, recommended the passage of the bill.
The letter follows:
TREASURY DEPARTMENT, OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY,
MY DEAR SIR: I am in receipt of your letter submitting S. 7147, relative to the assistant appraiser at the port of New York.
After the words “with the approval," on page 2, line 5, insert the words "or by the direction." I think this was interlined in the bill as sent to the Senate. My thought is that a deputy might prove unsatisfactory to the Department and the appraiser hesitate to dismiss. The appraiser might be very glad to have the responsibility taken by the Secretary of the Treasury, and instances might arise when the Secretary would want to exercise the authority against the wish of the appraiser. If there be any reason why the appointment should be approved by the Secretary of the Treasury the same reason exists why he should have authority to order the revocation. With this amendment I think the bill should pass.
I think there should be an amendment to S. 7145 providing for an increase o salary for several of the customs officers at New York. While I think the appraiser should receive the same compensation as the naval officer and the surveyor, I believe the members of the Board of General Appraisers should receive $10,000, and it would be wise to include it all in one bill.
Yours, very truly,
L. M. SHAW.