Mr. HENDERSON, of Iowa. No estimate has been made in that respect as to the national park. As to the zoological park, the estimate was about $25,000 a year-probably $40,000 for the first year or two, when the Government would be putting in accommodations for the animals. Our experience would probably be about the same as that of other cities in regard to their parks.

I will say, for the information of those who desire to know, that, according to the figures furnished to us, the parks in London embrace 2,200 acres; in Paris, 58,000 acres; Vienna, 8,000 acres; Tokyo, 6,000 acres; Berlin, 5,000 acres; Dublin, 1,900 acres; Versailles, 3,000 acres; Central Park, New York City, 840 acres. Chicago has just authorized a park of 2,000 acres. I do not know what number of acres may be embraced in the present parking system of that city. San Francisco has 1,200 acres of park. The city of Washington has no park. It is a question for grave thought and earnest consideration whether the time has not arrived when our national capital should have a park in keeping with the capitals of other nations. I think that we should have the judgment of our associates in this House on that subject. I believe in this park; I am for it; but I will yield my judgment to that of the House and will devote my efforts to carrying out its wish. I repeat that I would be glad to have an expression of the sentiment of the House before we again go into conference.

Mr. HATCH. Does the gentleman wish to be understood as saying that there is in the Senate amendment provision for two parks-one a general park and one a zoological garden?

Mr. HENDERSON, of Iowa. No, sir. The original amendment which was put on the bill by the Senate provides for the purchase of 200 acres for a zoological garden. The proposition now urged upon us is to have a national park embracing some 2,000 acres, running clear out to the boundary, and which shall include a zoological garden—the greater to include the less.

Mr. HATCH. How much of this proposed appropriation is to be devoted to the establishment of the zoological garden?

Mr. HENDERSON, of Iowa. It was estimated that for the first year about $40,000 would be required to equip and run the zoological park. Mr. HATCH. That is aside from the purchase of the land?

Mr. HENDERSON, of Iowa. I think the amount embraced in the amendment of the Senate for the purchase of the ground for the zoological garden is about $200,000.

I desire to say in this connection, as suggested to me by the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. O'Neill], that Philadelphia has 2,900 acres of park.

Mr. HATCH. If the gentleman would include in this bill an amendment providing for inclosing the Capitol as a "zoological park," I think the country would indorse the proposition, for we have now as big a "bear garden" here as anybody could want.

Mr. HENDERSON, of Iowa. No doubt there are in the Capitol some animals that ought to be taken in. But let us not turn this matter to mirth. It is a serious question and I think it should be seriously considered by the House.

Mr. RANDALL. Does the gentleman from Iowa maintain that the conferees representing the House and the Senate upon a controversy involving $200,000 for a zoological garden can entertain a proposition for purchasing, not 200 acres, but 2,000 acres, at an expense of a million of dollars?

Mr. HENDERSON, of Iowa. I think it is within the power of the two Houses to do that.

Mr. RANDALL. Well, then, I hope this House will take that fact into consideration in the vote which it will give.

Mr. HENDERSON, of Iowa. That is why I have said in perfect candor that I do not want to do anything on this question until we have an expression of the sense of the House; I have frankly presented the question with that view. I certainly would not venture on such a proposition without some expression from the House in favor of it. Mr. BLOUNT. Will the gentleman from Iowa permit me to ask him a question?

Mr. HENDERSON, of Iowa. With great pleasure.

Mr. BLOUNT. The proposition is for a zoological park?

Mr. HENDERSON, of Iowa. Yes, sir.

Mr. BLOUNT. The gentleman says there is being pressed on them a plan for a national park, an entirely distinct one from this zoological • park?

Mr. HENDERSON, of Iowa. It is to be an enlargement of this, and embraces animals as well as a general park.

Mr. BLOUNT. Is it to be a national park?

Mr. HENDERSON, of Iowa. It is a national park, embracing a zoological collection. That is what they are pressing upon us. A number of bills have been introduced into the Senate and House embracing that idea. I am not certain but favorable reports have been made on them. The gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Rowell], on the District Committee, says favorable report has been made on that proposition. Mr. BLOUNT. What is the extent to which they propose to enlarge? Mr. HENDERSON, of Iowa. They propose to take in about 2,000 The park proposed by the amendment is to be located on Rock Creek. The larger park would take in the smaller.

acres.

Mr. BLOUNT. I understand that is being discussed by the conferees. Mr. HENDERSON, of Iowa. We have only discussed the zoological features so far.

Mr. BLOUNT. But it is being pressed.

Mr. HENDERSON, of Iowa. It is being pressed by the citizens' committee. A committee came and asked us to consider it.

Mr. BLOUNT. Do the conferees consider it is competent for them to entertain the proposition?

Mr. HENDERSON, of Iowa. We can enlarge or decrease it, but I think some expression should come from the House before we enter on any such proposition.

Mr. BRECKINRIDGE, of Kentucky. Will the gentleman yield to me? Mr. HENDERSON, of Iowa. Yes, sir.

Mr. BRECKINRIDGE, of Kentucky. As the amendment now stands it is limited to a zoological park.

Mr. HENDERSON, of Iowa. Yes, sir,

Mr. BRECKINRIDGE, of Kentucky. What the gentleman wants is instructions to go further and make an amendment for a national park.

Mr. HENDERSON, of Iowa. We want an expression from the House whether they want a park or not.

Mr. BRECKINRIDGE, of Kentucky. There is the difficulty with those of us who are in favor of a zoological park and against a national park. For one I am in favor of a zoological park. I think if we can appropriate money for the purpose of making archæological and ethnological researches and to send out the Albatross to find fossils at the bottom of the sea we can certainly spend a few thousand dollars to keep the animals now nearly extinct from becoming entirely so by the establishment of a zoological park in this city. I think that is a wise thing, but I am not willing to go into a real estate speculation to the extent of 2,000 acres for a national park.

Mr. HENDERSON, of Iowa. I wish to impress upon the House if we are going to have a park here it must be provided soon, for when houses are built and the city extends into the region where the park is proposed to be built, the only available ground for it will be taken up. It is now within our reach, and citizens are eager to contribute from their own pockets to aid in building it. If the larger scheme can be made the property holders will contribute largely toward it.

Mr. BRECKINRIDGE, of Kentucky. I do not wish to be understood as wishing to prevent any liberal citizens from buying 1,800 acres of land and presenting it to the Government or city for that purpose if they choose. I wish to be understood only as favoring the zoological park instead of the other; and, if possible, I should like to have some expression of sentiment on the part of the House which would enable the conferees to act on that proposition.

Mr. HENDERSON, of Iowa. But for the fact that a few men planted in the midst of the proposed park, having the power of refusing to sell their lands or fix any price upon them, are able to block the way of their fellow-citizens in this respect, there would probably be not so much necessity for this action. But the power to condemn must be given to reach that class of people. That is why the citizens of the

District of Columbia insist upon some legislation to reach them. Efforts were made by subscription; a large amount has already been obtained by subscription, and, as I understand, a considerable amount has been promised; but because of the fact that here and there some person will refuse to give way or allow his property to be used for the purpose at any compensation, hoping to be able at some time or other to demand from his fellow-citizens blackmail of 200 or 300 per cent over the value of the property, it is necessary that some such steps should be taken to allow the exercise of the right of eminent domain, if this work is ever to be prosecuted. Because, as I have said, when this land is built up, it will be very difficult and very expensive to get possession of it. Mr. BLOUNT. Will the gentleman permit me a moment? Mr. HENDERSON, of Iowa. Certainly.

Mr. BLOUNT. For many years we have been told when making the appropriations pertaining to the Potomac Flats that the Government would gain thereby about 700 acres of land. I wish to ask my friend if in the investigation of this matter that subject has been considered. Mr. HENDERSON, of Iowa. We did not have that matter before us, I will state to my friend from Georgia.

Mr. BLOUNT. If my friend had heard my question I think he would not have answered me in that way. He has just stated, when he was referring to the need of securing the land which it was desirable to secure possession of for the purposes of a national park, that it would be difficult after awhile, or in a few years, to get suitable lands; and in that connection I asked the gentleman whether he or his fellow-conferees in discussing the feasibility of getting lands for this purpose had turned their attention to the large amount of land which would probably be reclaimed from the Potomac Flats.

Mr. HENDERSON, of Iowa. No, sir; it has not been urged upon us as either desirable or available for that purpose. On the contrary, the region of Rock Creek, it is represented, is a beautiful region of country for the purposes of the park, equally adapted for that purpose as the Philadelphia park, and better perhaps than Central Park in New York. I do not know as to the accuracy of that, for I have not inspected them. I simply lay the matter before the House and ask an expression of its judgment.

Now I would like to answer my friend from Ohio who is on his feet. Mr. BENJ. BUTTERWORTH. I wish to ask if it is not possible to make substantial progress in this matter by ascertaining first what lands can be obtained, surveying the outlines, and then get the next Congress to act upon it, if we are not now ready to do so? I understand that neither the price of the ground is known, nor in fact the exact limits the park is proposed to occupy.

Mr. HENDERSON, of Iowa. They have made and submitted very careful estimates of the cost.

Mr. BUTTERWORTH. But I only wish to suggest whether it is not possible to insert a provision here looking in the direction the gentleman contemplates.

Mr. HENDERSON, of Iowa. The citizens' committee have that matter well in hand. The region is well mapped out, and the only difficulty is in the want of power to condemn for the purpose of acquiring title for the Government.

I will yield to the gentleman from South Carolina [Mr. Hemphill], unless some other gentleman desires to be heard.

Mr. JOHN J. HEMPHILL. I would like to offer the following instruction to the committee of conference.

The Speaker (Mr. JOHN G. CARLISLE). It is not now in order to instruct the conferees. It can be read for information, if the gentleman desires.

Mr. HEMPHILL. Then I ask that it be read for information.

The Clerk read as follows:

Resolved, That the House managers on the District of Columbia appropriation bill are hereby instructed by the House to endeavor to secure such action by the managers on the part of the two Houses on the Senate amendment numbered 124 as will secure to the District of Columbia a national park.

Mr. HEMPHILL. I offer that resolution with a view of getting the sense of the House on this question. As those of us who have been here for a year or two remember, an effort has been constantly made on the part of the Senate to so provide in the appropriation bill for the District of Columbia that some legislation may be had for the establishment of a zoological park. At the same time there have been bills pending before this and the other branch of Congress for a national park, and if the national park project is adopted then the provision for the zoological park as a separate institution will be entirely unnecessary. The bill for the national park has been reported favorably and unanimously by the Committee on the District of Columbia, who have taken a great deal of pains in this respect to investigate the subject and ascertain all of the details.

Inasmuch as no opportunity will be afforded us in this session of Congress to present this matter to the House, and as in the view of the committee it is important that it should at the present time be acted upon, I would like to submit the views which influenced the committee in reporting this bill favorably.

Now, Mr. Speaker, there has been a great deal said heretofore about how much has been spent upon the District of Columbia in the way of public improvements, but if gentlemen will look out upon this city they will see that there has been less done for the people of the District of Columbia, as citizens of this District of Columbia, than for the people of any other city in the United States. Now I do not say that the people here do not get more benefit from the public