No. AMENDING ACT TO ESTABLISH THE BUREAU OF MINES. FEBRUARY 19, 1913.-Ordered to be printed. Mr. FOSTER, from the committee of conference, submitted the following CONFERENCE REPORT. [To accompany H. R. 17260.] The committee of conference on the disagreeing votes of the two Houses on the amendments of the Senate to the bill (H. R. 17260) to amend an act entitled "An act to establish in the Department of the Interior a Bureau of Mines," approved May 16, 1910, having met, after full and free conference have agreed to recommend and do recommend to their respective Houses as follows: That the House recede from its disagreement to the amendments of the Senate numbered 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, and 8, and agree to the same. That the Senate recede from its amendment numbered 9. M. D. FOSTER, W. B. WILSON, Managers on the part of the House. MILES POINDEXTER, GEO. SUTHERLAND, Managers on the part of the Senate. H R-62-3-vol 1-64 STATEMENT OF THE MANAGERS ON THE PART OF THE HOUSE. The committee of conference on the disagreeing votes of the two Houses begs leave to submit the following statement on Senate amendments to H. R. 17260: The House conferees receded from its disagreement to Senate amendments as follows: (1) Page 2, line 10, strike out the word "direction" and insert "approval," as it is thought the word "approval" is in better form than that of "direction," as the Director of the Bureau of Mines directs the work with the approval of the Secretary of the Interior. (2) Page 2, line 15, after "and" insert the words "conserving resources through" which more clearly defines the scope of the act, and for this reason receded from its disagreement to the amendments. (3) Page 2, line 18, strike out the comma after "industries" and insert a semicolon. (4) Page 2, line 18, strike out "the" before the word "peat," as the word is superfluous. (5) Page 2, line 19, after "peat" insert a semicolon. (6) Page 2, line 19, after the word "and" insert the words "on behalf of the Government to investigate," as it more clearly defines the intention of the act and it makes it clear that the investigations is to be done on behalf of the Government of the United States. (7) Page 2, line 21, insert the words "mining, preparation, treatment and use, as this defines more clearly the intention of the investigation, and it is necessary to investigate as to the method of mining and preparation, treatment, and the most efficient use. (8) Page 3, lines 12 to 20, the Senate struck out all down to the proviso and inserted the following language: SEC. 4. In conducting inquiries and investigations authorized by this act neither the director nor any member of the Bureau of Mines shall have any personal or private interest in any mine or the products of any mine under investigation, or shall accept employment from any private party for services in the examination of any mine or private mineral property, or issue any report as to the valuation or the management of any mine or other private mineral property. The intention of this amendment is that no employee of the Bureau of Mines is to have any interest in any mining property under investigation or accept any employment of any private party for the purpose of examining any mining property of any kind, and it is intended to make this provision plain. (9) Page 4, line 3, the Senate conferees receded from its disagreement to the amendment inserting the words of explosives" limit the investigation to that alone, but it is believed that the bureau should be empowered to investigate other safety appliances, such as lamps and mining machinery. M. D. FOSTER, W. B. WILSON, JOSEPH HOWELL, Managers on the part of the House. О TO RELINQUISH CLAIM OF THE UNITED STATES FOR TIMBER CUT ON PETACA LAND GRANT. FEBRUARY 20, 1913.-Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union and ordered to be printed. Mr HOWLAND, from the Committee on the Judiciary, submitted the following REPORT. [To accompany S. 7385]. The Committee on the Judiciary, having had under consideration the bill S. 7385, reports the same back to the House without amendment, with the recommendation that it do pass. A statement of the facts on which this recommendation is based is contained in a letter from the Attorney General of the United States dated January 28, 1913, addressed to the chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary, and which is printed in full as a part of this report. OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL, Hon. HENRY D. CLAYTON, Chairman Committee on the Judiciary, House of Representatives. DEAR SIR: I have yours of the 25th instant, handing me copy of bill (S. 7385) to relinquish the claim of the United States against the grantees, their legal representatives and assigns, for timber cut on Petaca land grant. This bill proposes to relinquish, release, satisfy, and discharge all right, claim, and demand which the United States may have against the original claimants of the Petaca land grant for timber cut and removed therefrom by the claimants, their legal representatives and assigns, prior to December 18, 1899, and I understand your committee desires all the information in the possession of this department relative to the propriety or advisability of the proposed legislation. I have the honor to advise you that from information furnished by the Interior Department it appears that the Petaca land grant in New Mexico was favorably reported by the surveyor general of the then Territory of New Meixco, and a preliminary survey was made of the grant, showing the same to embrace an area of approximately 187,000 acres. This report of the surveyor general was transmitted to Congress January 21, 1887, by the Secretary of the Interior, who expressed the opinion that the area should be limited to the quantity occupied and cultivated by those who claimed the grant in 1848, and ought not in any event to exceed the limitation of town grants, namely, four square leagues. The grant was never confirmed by Congress, and when the Court of Private Land Claims was established proceedings were had before that court which resulted in a decree, entered December 1, 1896, whereby the court held that the title to the land claimed, embracing a total of approximately 187,000 acres, was valid and the title thereto confirmed in the claimants. However, an appeal from that decision was taken to the Supreme Court of the United States, where a decision was rendered reversing the action of the Court of Private Land Claims and confirming the grant for a very limited area (United States v. Pena, 175 U. S., 500). The timber mentioned in this bill was cut from the area excluded from the grant under the Supreme Court's decision. As early as 1883, one S. S. Farwell claimed an interest in the grant, and some time later he, with L. Z. Farwell, of Freeport, Ill., and Marcus Z. Farwell, of Denver, Colo., made a contract with one Harry S. Buckman, of Colorado Springs, Colo., authorizing the latter to cut timber on lands within the claimed limits of the grant. Under this contract Buckman cut some 27,000,000 feet of timber. On August 12, 1886, L. Z. Farwell and S. S. Farwell entered into a contract with R. W. Stewart and E. H. McConnell whereby the two latter were permitted to cut timber from the grant at a stumpage price of $2.50 per thousand. Under this contract Stewart and McConnell cut some 33,000,000 feet of timber. Based on recommendations from the Interior Department, suit has been instituted against Buckman and the Farwells to recover the value of the 27,000,000 feet cut by Buckman at $2 per thousand, and suit is contemplated against Stewart and McConnell and the Farwells to recover some $82,000, the value of the 33,000,000 feet cut by Stewart and McConnell under their contract. The Interior Department regards both trespasses as innocent and for that reason recommended suit for the stumpage value of the timber only. The timber was cut in both instances more than 20 years ago, and at a time when the Farwells, who claimed to own the grant, and probably everybody else interested in the matter believed the title to be good. So far as this department is advised there is no evidence whatever to show any bad faith, and, while the Government has a legal claim against those who cut the timber, because the lands having been eliminated from the grant by the decision of the Supreme Court, actually belonged to the United States, it seems exceedingly harsh to attempt to enforce the Government's claim at this late day. Some of the original parties are dead, and the suit must necessarily be brought against their heirs. In view of the entire situation, I think that Congress should grant the relief proposed by this bill, and I therefore unhesitatingly recommend its passage. Very respectfully, CONGRESS NAVAL APPROPRIATION BILL. FEBRUARY 20, 1913.-Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union and ordered to be printed. Mr. PADGETT, from the Committee on Naval Affairs, submitted the following REPORT.. [To accompany H. R. 28812.] The Committee on Naval Affairs, to whom was referred so much of the President's annual message as relates to the Naval Establishment, together with the annual estimates of the Navy Department, and the annual report of the Secretary of the Navy, submit herewith H. R. making appropriations for the Naval Service for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1914, with the following statement: The amount carried in this bill is $146,618,364.53. The naval appropriation act of last year amounted to $123,151,538.76. The estimates of the Navy Department including the building program recommended by the Secretary of the Navy, and the supplemental estimates, the report of the Secretary of the Navy, and communications from the department recommending appropriations to be carried in this bill, and the recommendation of the Secretary of the Navy in his hearing before the committee for 12 destroyers with their tenders, 2 transports, 1 ammunition ship, 5 submarines with their tender, 2 gunboats, and 1 supply vessel, in addition to the 3 battleships estimated for in the Book of Estimates, amounted for the next fiscal year to $168,946,179. The committee after careful consideration made deductions to the amount of $22,327,814.47. The appropriation for the maintenance of the Navy, Marine Corps, and the Naval Academy, exclusive of the increase of the Navy, this year amounts to $105,387,948.53, while the cost for the same items last year amounted to $102,655,634.28. These figures show an increase of $2,732,314.25 exclusive of any new construction heretofore or herein authorized. After a careful examination of all the estimates the committee is of the opinion that this increase can not be reduced and is to be accounted for by the following increases which must be provided for in the maintenance of the present Navy: Pay of the Navy is increased $1,983,690.75. Equipment of vessels is increased $756,700. Cost of target practice is increased $300,000. Experiments, ordnance, increased $100,000. Increased wage scale at Washington Navy Yard and proving ground $100,000. The bal |