2d Session. No. 734. WATER SUPPLY OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. JULY 1, 1918.-Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union and ordered to be printed. Mr. GOULD, from the Committee on the District of Columbia, submitted the following REPORT. [To accompany H. R. 12549.] The Committee on the District of Columbia, to whom was referred the bill (H. R. 12549) authorizing and directing the Secretary of War to appoint a commission to investigate and report upon the available sources of water supply for the District of Columbia, having had the same under consideration, beg to report it back to the House without amendment and recommend that the bill do pass. The purpose of this bill is to authorize the Secretary of War to take early steps to provide against a threatened water shortage in the District of Columbia by appointing a commission to investigate and report at the earliest practicable date as to the best means to augment the present system of supply. The commission to be appointed is to consist of five members, three from the Engineer Corps of the Army, one from the engineer department of the District of Columbia, and one from the Washington Suburban Sanitary Commission, thus representing the interests of the Federal Government, with the military reservations and Army posts adjacent to the District of Columbia; that of the District of Columbia and of that portion of Maryland adjacent to the District of Columbia within the jurisdiction of the Washington Suburban Sanitary Com mission. That some action must be taken to meet the water shortage that faces Washington through war-time expansion, greatly increased population, and attendant increased water consumption, and that action should be taken at an early date to meet existing conditions is clearly apparent as shown by the various reports of the water department and the engineers of the Government. The following communication under date of June 27, 1918, addressed to Hon. Frederick N. Zihlman, author of the present bill, by Brig. Gen. John G. D. Knight, Engineer Commissioner of the District of Columbia, strongly urges the passage of the legislation to forestall a calamity: ENGINEER COMMISSIONER OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, Hon. FREDERICK N. ZIHLMAN, House of Representatives, Washington, D. C. SIR: I note with interest that you have introduced a bill to investigate and report upon the available sources of water supply for the District of Columbia. I, for one, thank you for action which I trust may receive timely support. It is necessary to reiterate the warnings of those whose duty it has been and is to supply and distribute water for the District of Columbia. To these has been added that of our President while saving for the community the water supply of the White House fountains. For many years, with selfish ends, attention has been invited to the need of an increased water supply. Now we find ourselves part of a community not limited by District lines, and alive not only to our own needs but also to those of the garrison across the Potomac. I earnestly hope relief may forestall calamity. JOHN G. D. KNIGHT, Brigadier General, United States Army, retired, The water department's figures for the month of June last show a daily average consumption of 66,156,120 gallons; maximum daily consumption of 71,500,000 and minimum daily consumption of 62,000,000 gallons. The safe maximum capacity of the conduit from Great Falls is estimated at 75,000,000 gallons and the safe dependable capacity at 65,000,000. The maximum capacity of the filtration system is estimated at 90,000,000 gallons, but the supply afforded by the conduit is not sufficient to meet conditions. The bill as drafted gives the commission authority to investigate all sources of supply and to report on the one affording the most practical solution. This will include not only the Potomac but likewise the Patuxent and Middle and Little Patuxent projects. The object is to acquire the best water available and a sufficient supply not only for the present needs but for many years to come, also for the commission to take into consideration the question of cost, and the shortest period of time practicable for completion of any recommended project. The amount of appropriation undoubtedly will be sufficient to meet the necessary expense attending the investigation. In conclusion, the water situation in the District of Columbia is a serious one and the demand for immediate action is imperative. Your committee recommends the passage of the bill. ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE IN ARIZONA. JULY 2, 1918.-Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union and ordered to be printed. Mr. CARAWAY, from the Committee on the Judiciary, submitted the following REPORT. [To accompany S. 714.] The Committee on the Judiciary, to whom was referred the bill (S. 714) providing for an additional judge for the district of Arizona, having considered the same, report it back without amendments and with a recommendation that it do pass. The reasons which make it necessary for an additional judge for the district of Arizona are so fully set forth in a report (No. 240) made to the Senate on this bill that the House committee has not thought it necessary to go into details. The estimated population of Arizona for draft purposes was 409,203; the area of the State is 113,956 square miles; the Indian population is 44,436. It is thought that the population of Arizona is very much in excess of what the estimate for the draft indicated. The business in the Federal court, in proportion to population, is very much in excess of that of any other State. This is due in part to the Indian population, to forest and military reservations, and to the additional fact that it borders on the Republic of Mexico. Fortytwo per cent of the entire area of the State is included in either Indian, forest, or military reservations. All of these conditions bring to the Federal court a large amount of litigation, and much of it of a very important nature. The presiding judge for the district of Arizona, with reference to whose character and ability all who know him speak in the highest terms, says that he can not possibly, for lack of time, discharge all the duties in a manner satisfactory to himself at least. The district attorney of Arizona also sets forth the reasons why the judge can not perform all of the duties imposed upon him in the district of Arizona. The letter of the Attorney General transmitting these letters, together with these letters to the Senate committee, are printed herein and afford a sufficient reason for this recommendation. Hon. CHARLES A. CULBERSON, DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL, Chairman Committee on the Judiciary, United States Senate. MY DEAR SENATOR: Permit me to acknowledge receipt of your request of the 10th instant for information tending to show the desirability, or otherwise, of the legislation proposed in the bill (S. 714) providing for an additional judge for the district of Arizona. In order to expedite this matter as much as possible, I am inclosing herewith copies of letters received from the judge and district attorney for the district of Arizona, dated December 29, 1916, and January 12, 1917, respectively, expressing their views in connection with S. 7484, which provided for the division of the State of Arizona into two judicial districts. The information contained in these letters will indicate to your committee the business that is being transacted in the present district. There are also inclosed herewith for further information copies of comparative statements made from the records of this department showing in detail the number of cases commenced and terminated in the district of Arizona during the last four years, the number of cases pending at the close of each fiscal year, and the relative increase or decrease in the number of cases terminated and commenced. In addition, the statements show the expense of conducting the court during said periods. It is hoped that the information submitted will meet the requirements of your inquiry. Very respectfully, T. W. GREGORY, DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, OFFICE OF UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, The ATTORNEY GENERAL, Washington, D. C. DISTRICT OF ARIZONA, Globe, Ariz., January 12, 1917. SIR: I received your wire of December 29, 1916, directing me to furnish my opinion as to the desirableness, or otherwise, of proposed legislation to divide Arizona into two judicial districts, reply to which has been delayed by preparation for the present term now convening here. The proposed legislation is, in my judgment, most desirable from many viewpoints. An examination of our monthly and term reports will readily disclose the amount of criminal business transacted by this court, but the full value of the work entailed can not be gathered from a mere inspection of these reports. Add to the criminal business the civil cases in which the United States is a party and the calendar of private civil litigation, and it can be seen without serious question that the burden which Judge Sawtelle has to carry is inordinately heavy. That he has been able to dispatch the work, as indicated by the cases closed, can be accounted for only by a just tribute to his excessive application, entailing few days of rest and recreation, with the consequent inroad on his mental and physical vitality. Withal he has not been able to give to many important matters the attention needed to dispose of them promptly and to the satisfaction of litigants. We have had several very important suits by the Government submitted during the past year and have only recently been able to obtain decrees in them. They involved intricate legal questions, to which the court, on account of the many terms intervening, could not with promptness address itself. That sufficient time was not available for consideration of cases submitted, as indicated by the fact that notwithstanding only eight terms a year are provided for in this district, the other months being, no doubt, intended for preparation and deliberation, we have had sessions of court in every one of the months of the past year here at Globe in January, in February at Tucson, regular terms at Prescott, Phoenix, and Tucson in March, April, and May, respectively; the May term at Tucson was continued far into the month of June, necessitating the postponement of the regular June term here at Globe. In July and August an adjourned term was held at Prescott to try equity cases, and September, October, November, and December were occupied with the regular terms at Prescott, Phoenix, and Tucson, the term at Tucson occupying nearly all of December and again necessitating the postponement of the regular term here until this month. An adjourned term is already called at Tucson for next month; the four regular terms will follow at the four places for holding court, with splendid chances for another summer session at Prescott to consider equity cases, which are invariably set at the foot of the calendar and the terms wholly occupied with jury cases. |