Images de page
PDF
ePub

SENATE

74TH CONGRESS

1st Session

}

REPORT No. 299

CONSERVATION AND SETTLEMENT OF ESTATES OF ABSENTEES AND ABSCONDERS IN THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

MARCH 4 (calendar day, MARCH 11), 1935.-Ordered to be printed

Mr. King, from the Committee on the District of Columbia, sub

mitted the following

REPORT

[To accompany H. R. 83)

The Committee on the District of Columbia, to whom was referred the bill (H. R. 83) to provide for the conservation and settlement of estates of absentees and absconders in the District of Columbia, and for other purposes, having considered the same, report favorably thereon to the Senate and recommends that the bill do pass.

The purpose of this bill is to provide a procedure for the conservation and settlement of the estate of a person who, having a wife or minor child dependent upon him for support, has disappeared or absconded.

At present there is no provision of law which will permit the distribution of an absconding person's estate, regardless of how destitute his dependents may be. This bill provides for the appointment of a receiver and the disposition of the property, both real and personal, under the direction of the court.

O

74TH CONGRESS

1st Session

SENATE

{

REPORT No. 300

CHANGE DESIGNATION OF LEFFLER PLACE TO SECOND

PLACE

MARCH 4 (calendar day, March 11), 1935.-Ordered to be printed

Mr. KING, from the Committee on the District of Columbia, sub

mitted the following

REPORT

(To accompany H. R. 4538]

The Committee on the District of Columbia, to whom was referred the bill (H. R. 4538) to change the designation of Leffler Place to Second Place, having considered the same, report favorably thereon and recommend that the bill do pass.

This bill was introduced at the request of residents of the vicinity who submit the following reasons:

It seems wholly inconsistent to permit the name of Leffler Place to be attached to a street just one block long, in view of the fact that south of Fort Slocum Park there is a street properly named Second Place which is on an exact line with Leffler Place.

The name Leffler Place is not one that has any particular meaning and has no significance attached to it; that is, if one should attempt to find Leffler Place, just one block long, in this large city, it would be quite difficult, whereas, if it is called Second Place, the location suggests iteself to one at once in a general way. One would immediately conclude that it was between Second Street and Third Street, which it is.

There is apparently no good reason for retaining the name of Leffler Place, but it would undoubtedly be distinctly advantageous to name it Second Place.

Congress has on several occasions heretofore enacted bills permitting the change of street names when a sufficient reason for the proposed change was given and the Commissioners of the District of Columbia approved.

O

[blocks in formation]

MARCH 4 (calendar day, March 11), 1935.-Ordered to be printed

Mr. King, from the Committee on the District of Columbia,

submitted the following

REPORT

[To accompany H. J. Res. 134]

The Committee on the District of Columbia, to whom was referred the joint resolution (H. J. Res. 134), after consideration report the same favorably to the Senate with the recommendation that the resolution be adopted.

The Virginia-District of Columbia Boundary Commission, appointed pursuant to an act of the last Congress, approved March 21, 1934 (Public, 125, 73d Cong., 48 Stat. 453), reports that it will be unable to complete its work by March 1, 1935, the time limit set by the act. This joint resolution extends the life of the Commission until it shall have completed its work and made its report, but not later than December 1, 1935, and authorizes an additional appropriation of $10,000 to defray expenses of the Commission and pay salaries and compensation under the act.

The Commissioners are required to survey, agree upon, and mark a boundary line between the District of Columbia and the State of Virginia. In locating the line they are directed to take into consideration the several decisions of the Supreme Court of the United States in relation thereto, the findings and reports of the Maryland and Virginia Boundary Commission of 1877, the compact of 1785 between the State of Maryland and the Commonwealth of Virginia, the claims of ownership of the United States and all private persons and corporations along the Virginia shore line, and the equitable and prescriptive rights, if any, of the United States and private claimants growing out of long, continued, and uninterrupted possession. The Commissioners are to report their findings and recommendations to the Congress and to the Legislature of Virginia, and the boundary line recommended by the Commission shall become binding only when and if ratified both by the Congress and by the Legislature of Virginia.

S. Repts., 74-1, vol. 1-22

At the hearings before the Committee on the Judiciary of the House the Commissioners stated that it is impossible for them to complete their work by March 1. The following excerpt from the testimony before the committee of Commissioner Gloth is indicative of the amount of work which has been done by the Commission and the amount of work which yet remains to be done:

Up to the present time the transcript of the record comprised 1,956 pages not including exhibits heretofore referred to, a copy of all of which transcript will be presented to the Congress when full report is made by this Commission.

The Commission is proceeding day by day holding four sessions per week beginning on Tuesday, Tuesday being the day fixed for the day of the week for the beginning of testimony (instead of Monday), at the request of counsel representing all of the parties appearing before the Commission.

As stated above, Arlington County has notified the Commission that it will require not less than 3 weeks longer to complete its testimony.

The city of Alexandria has notified the Commission that it will require not less than 2 to 4 weeks longer to complete the taking of its testimony.

At the conclusion of this time, of course, the intervening private property owners have expressed a desire to present their claims respecting the boundary. line dispute of the respective sovereigns. At the conclusion of this time, of course, the Government of the United States will require considerable time for the refutation of the evidence in support of the claims of the Commonwealth of Virginia, Arlington County, the city of Alexandria, and the private property owners on the Virginia shore of the Potomac River.

As I said, Mr. Chairman, 1,956 pages of testimony have been taken already. The Government, in the presentation of its case in chief, which was only its prima facie case, submitted 20 exhibits. I have not a list of those with me. I got this information up hurriedly last night, because I did not know we were going to appear before the committee until yesterday.

I will say, however, up until yesterday Alexandria city had offered 48 exhibits, and the county of Arlington had offered 74 exhibits. Among these exhibits we find abstracts of titles. One of those abstracts contains 126 pages. gentlemen care to, you can take a look at the type of exhibits that have been accepted by the Commission. I haven't any idea how long it is going to take to study these exhibits and form a conclusion as to their value or worth, nor how long it is going to take to digest this testimony after it has been taken.

If you

SENATE

74TH CONGRESS

1st Session

}

REPORT No. 302

INCORPORATION OF TRINITY COLLEGE OF

WASHINGTON, D. C.

March 4 (calendar day, March 11), 1935.—Ordered to be printed

Mr. REYNOLDS, from the Committee on the District of Columbia,

submitted the following

REPORT

[To accompany H. R. 3477]

The Committee on the District of Columbia, to whom was referred the bill (H. R. 3477) supplementary to and amendatory of the incorporation of Trinity College of Washington, D. C., organized under and by virtue of a certificate of incorporation pursuant to the incorporation laws of the Distriot of Columbia, as provided in subchapter i of chapter 18 of the Code of Laws of the District of Columbia, having considered the same, report favorably thereon and recommend that the bill do pass.

Trinity College is now attempting to operate under certification of incorporation filed in '1897 under the provisions of subchapter 1 of chapter 18 of the Code of Laws of the District of Columbia. The articles of incorporation were drawn with little view to the future development of the college and therefore they have become obsolete and unworkable. H. R. 3477 provides for an increase in the number of trustees and who shall be members of the board of trustees of Trinity College; by whom the board of trustees shall be elected and who shall be eligible for membership on the board of trustees and the powers and duties of the board of trustees; that Trinity College may enter into affiliated agreements with other institutions of learning; that Trinity College may receive, invest, and administer endowments and gifts of money and property absolute or subject to payments by way of annuities; that Trinity College shall adopt a common seal by which all acts of Trinity College shall be authenticated, and that no institution of learning hereafter incorporated in the District of Columbia shall use the words in whole or in part “Trinity College.”

Similar legislation has been enacted for the benefit of Columbus, Georgetown, George Washington, National, and Catholic Universities.

« PrécédentContinuer »