3d Session.

No. 10.

BRIDGE OVER THE MISSISSIPPI RIVER AT LA CROSSE. [To accompany bill H. R. 3099.]

PETITION

OF THE

MILWAUKEE AND SAINT PAUL RAILWAY COMPANY,

FOR

Permission to bridge the Mississippi River at La Crosse.

DECEMBER 9, 1872.-Referred to the Committee on Commerce and ordered to be printed.

To the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled:

The petition of the Milwaukee and Saint Paul Railway Company, a corporation incorporated by the State of Wisconsin, and having various rights and franchises in the States of Illinois, Iowa, and Minnesota, respectfully shows to your honorable bodies

That they are engaged in the business of transporting persons and property to and from Chicago and Saint Paul, via Milwaukee, and across the Mississippi River at or near to La Crosse, and in such business are the servants of the public in carrying their persons and property, and in moving their crops and produce, and carrying to the country far beyond La Crosse supplies and necessaries of all kinds.

That Congress, desiring to facilitate the movements of persons and property by the agency of this company, by the eighth section of an act entitled "An act to authorize the construction of a bridge across the Mississippi River at or near the town of Clinton, in the State of Iowa, and other bridges across said river, and to establish them as postroads," approved April 1, 1872, authorized the petitioners, the Milwaukee and Saint Paul Railway Company, to construct and maintain a bridge across the Mississippi River, at such a point as they (the Milwaukee and Saint Paul Railway Company) might select between the county of La Crosse, in the State of Wisconsin, and the county of Houston, in the State of Minnesota, qualifying the said authority by the fifth section of the same act, by requiring that said bridge should be built and located under and subject to such regulations for security of navigation of said river as the Secretary of War shall prescribe, &c.

That the said railway company own and operate a railroad upon each side of the Mississippi River; that is to say, extending from the west

line of the State of Wisconsin, on the river at North La Crosse, to Chicago, a distance of about 280 miles, and on the west side of the river, extending from a point opposite the terminus on the east side, in and from La Crescent to Saint Paul, a distance of 130 miles.

That so owning and operating said railroad as above described, they, pursuant to said eighth section, fixed the location of their bridge be tween said terminal points, and made large expenditures by the purchase of the right of way and lands at said point, and then applied to the Secretary of War to approve said location, and to establish such regulations for the security of navigation as were meet and proper. But that the Secretary, instead of approving said location and establishing proper regulations for the security of navigation, fixed upon and approved another location for said bridge at a point about two miles below the desired location, and at the foot of Mount Vernon street in La Crosse, at a point where no person or party who are authorized to build a bridge across the Mississippi River proposes or intends to build a bridge.

Your petitioners say that they, who are the only parties proposing to build a bridge at or near La Crosse, cannot do so at the point fixed upon by the Secretary, for the reason that it will increase the first cost of a bridge across the Mississippi River at least $200,000. It will lengthen their line of railroad between two and three miles, and will require a sharp curve upon each side of the river, (which will not be required if built at the terminal points of said railroad,) which additional length of road and curves will require additional outlay, for repairs and renewals, of at least $16,000 per annum.

Your petitioners say the additional cost to be incurred is wholly unnecessary, and that they do not believe that Congress intended to so "regulate commerce between the States" as to place such an additional burden upon the people and products of that portion of the country. At the present price of wheat it represents about 26,000 bushels of wheat that the farmers of Minnesota will be required to contribute annually to pay for said lengthened railroad, as proposed by the Secretary.

The petitioners are desirous of avoiding the necessity of the imposi tion of that burden upon the farmers of Minnesota and the great Northwest. Your petitioners aver that a bridge where they desire the same between the terminal points of their railroad in each State, is entirely feasible, and that it will not, at that place, impair or interfere seriously with the navigation of the Mississippi River.

Your petitioners therefore pray your honorable body to take the matter into consideration, and upon finding the allegations herein contained to be true, to thereupon so "regulate commerce between the States" as to authorize your petitioners to build and maintain a railwaybridge for railway traffic across the Mississippi River, between the ter minal points of their railroad in North La Crosse, in the State of Wisconsin, and in La Crescent, in the State of Minnesota, under such reg ulations and restrictions as will prevent them from seriously interfering with or impairing the navigation of the Mississippi River at that point. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. THE MILWAUKEE AND SAINT PAUL RAILWAY COMPANY, By RUSSELL SAGE,

Vice-President.

DECEMBER 5, 1872.

3d Session.

CARL EPPING, C. B. PHILLIPS.

DECEMBER 11, 1872.-Ordered to be printed.

No. 11.

Mr. CHARLES FOSTER asked and obtained leave to print the following

REPORT:

The Committee of Claims, to whom was referred the petition of Carl Epping and C. B. Phillips, asking compensation for property alleged to have been seized for the use of the Army of the United States during the late war, having carefully examined the same, ask leave to report:

That the evidence before the committee utterly fails to establish either a legal or equitable claim against the United States; and that, even if this were not the case, sufficient evidence of fraud has been presented to the committee, not only in regard to the claim itself, but of improper and corrupt influences resorted to in pressing the claim and endeavoring to obtain its passage by the committee, to warrant its rejection.

On account of these facts your committee report the petition back to the House with the recommendation that the same do lie upon the table.