will shortly be completed. Also that the failure of the company to carry its original project to completion has been due to unfavorable financial conditions.

In view of the facts stated and of the considerable amount of work involved in the enterprise, this department is constrained to withdraw any objection, implied in its report of February 25, 1916, to the extension of the life of the grant to September 18, 1921, as proposed in Senate bill No. 4476.

Hon. JAMES P. CLARKE,

NEWTON D. BAKER, Secretary of War.

WAR DEPARTMENT, Washington, February 25, 1916.

Chairman Committee on Commerce, United States Senate.

MY DEAR SIR: I have the honor to acknowledge the reference to this department of Senate bill No. 4476, current session of Congress

"To amend an act to authorize the Dauphin Island Railway and Harbor Company, its successors or assigns, to construct and maintain a bridge, or bridges, or viaducts, across the water between the mainland, at or near Cedar Point, and Dauphin Island, both Little and Big; also to dredge a channel from the deep waters of Mobile Bay into Dauphin Bay; also to construct and maintain docks and wharves along both Little and Big Dauphin Islands, as amended by an act approved June eighteenth, nineteen hundred and twelve.

By an act approved June 25, 1910, the Dauphin Island Railway & Harbor Co. was authorized, among other things, to construct a bridge across the waterway between Cedar Point and Dauphin Island, the time for commencing and completing the bridge being fixed at one and three years, respectively, from the date of approval of the act. By an act approved June 18, 1912, the time for completion was extended to September 18, 1916, practically an additional three years. It is now proposed, by the bill under consideration, to further extend the life of the privilege until September 18, 1921, or an additional period of five years.

Except in unusual cases involving exceptional conditions as to work and expense, Congress has uniformly limited the life of bridge franchises to three years. This franchise has now been in existence nearly six years, and so far the grantee has not even submitted plans for the proposed structure for departmental approval. Why so long an extension of time is required is not apparent to the department, and the advisability of granting it, contrary to the established practice of Congress in such cases, is suggested for the consideration of the committee.

Otherwise, I know of no objection to the passage of the bill so far as the interests of navigation are concerned.

Very respectfully,

Hon. O. W. UNDERWOOD,

H. L. SCOTT. Secretary of War ad interim.

FORNEY JOHNSTON,

Birmingham, Ala., February 11, 1916.

United States Senate, Washington, D. C. DEAR SENATOR: The Dauphin Island Railway & Harbor Co., which has undertaken the construction of a railroad across Mississippi Sound to a proposed port terminal on Dauphin Island, desires an extension of time for the completion of its system. It has graded and constructed a part of the line on the mainland between Cedar Point and the southern terminus of the Mobile & Ohio Railroad near Alabama Port, and I am advised that the work necessary to complete this extension and establish communication with the island by boats to operate between Cedar Point and Port Dauphin will be completed in a few weeks the Mobile & Ohio Railroad having agreed to operate the extension. Owing to general financial conditions, it has, of course, been impossible for this development to proceed; hence, an extension of time is necessary.

The plans for the railroad and drawbridges, etc., have been approved by the War Department. The original act authorizing the construction is found in volume 36, Statutes at Large, page 868. By an act approved June 18, 1912 (37 Stat. L., p. 136, chap. 173), the time for the completion of the bridge in question was extended to September 18, 1916 (62d Cong., 2d sess., H. R. 23799). There seems to be no particular reason why a restricted time limit should be fixed, and a five-year extension has been suggested.

On the theory that consideration in the House would be more delayed, I have sent to Mr. Dent copy of a proposed bill extending the time for completion to September 18, 1921. Do you think it is reasonably necessary for the bill to be introduced simultaneously in the Senate, in order to avoid any possible chance of its not being acted on at the present session?

I inclose copy of the proposed bill and will greatly appreciate any suggestions from you and your assistance in the matter.

Sincerely, yours,

FORNEY JOHNSTON.

CONGRESS, HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES. No.

BRIDGE ACROSS ST. MARYS RIVER, GA. AND FLA.

APRIL 25, 1916.-Referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be printed.

Mr. ADAMSON, from the Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce, submitted the following

REPORT.

[To accompany H. R. 14771.]

The Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce, to whom was referred the bill (H. R. 14771) granting the consent of Congress to commissioners of Charlton County, Ga., and Nassau County, Fla., to construct a bridge across the St. Marys River, to be known as the Dixie Highway Bridge, having considered the same, report thereon with amendment and as so amended recommend that it pass. Amend the bill as follows:

Page 1, lines 8, 9, and 10, strike out the words "to be known as the Dixie Highway Bridge, in the County of Charlton, in the State of Georgia."

Amend the title so as to read:

A bill granting the consent of Congress to commissioners of Charlton County, Ga., and Nassau County, Fla., to construct a bridge across the St. Marys River.

The bill as amended has the approval of the War Department, as will appear by the letter attached and which is made a part of this report.

Second indorsement.]

WAR DEPARTMENT, April 20, 1916. Respectfully returned to the chairman Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce, House of Representatives.

The Chief of Engineers reports that House bill No. 14771, current session of Congress, "Granting the consent of Congress to commissioners of Charlton County, Ga., and Nassau County, Fla., to construct a bridge across St. Marys River, to be known as the Dixie Highway Bridge," makes ample provision for the protection of the interests committed to the War Department, and I know of no objection to the favorable consideration of the bill by Congress so far as those interests are concerned. NEWTON D. BAKER, Secretary of War.

64TH CONGRESS, HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES. No. 604. }

1st Session.

ISSUANCE OF MEDICAL AND OTHER SUPPLIES TO AMERICAN RED CROSS.

APRIL 25, 1916.-Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union and ordered to be printed.

Mr. SHALLENBERGER, from the Committee on Military Affairs, submitted the following

REPORT.

[To accompany S. J. Res. 119.]

The Committee on Military Affairs, to whom was referred the joint resolution (S. J. Res. 119) to permit the issuance of medical and other supplies to the American National Red Cross for a temporary period, having considered the same, report thereon with a recommendation that it do pass.

This resolution proposes to permit the issuance of medical and other supplies to the American National Red Cross to be used for the instruction of persons who may volunteer to receive training from that association from May 1 to June 1, 1916. The act of May 8, 1914, authorizes the Secretary of War and the Secretary of the Navyto issue each at his discretion and under proper regulations to be prescribed by him, out of equipment for medical and other establishments on hand belonging to the Government and which can be temporarily spared, such articles as may appear to be required for instruction and practice by organization formed by the American National Red Cross for the purpose of rendering aid to the Army and Navy in war.

SEC. 2. That the regulations prescribed by the Secretary of War or by the Secretary of the Navy in pursuance of the authority granted by Section 1, shall provide for the immediate return of the articles of equipment loaned by the American National Red Cross when called for them by the authorities which issued them; and the said Secretaries shall require a bond in each case, in double of the value of the property, for the care and safe-keeping thereof and for the return of the same when required.

O